 
Dedication:

This book is dedicated to the millions of ordinary South Africans that deal with their daily physical, emotional, spiritual, financial and social struggles, in an honest and courageous manner. Never giving up, never giving in and never taking short-cuts to meet their basic human needs, to feed their families and to pay the bills. Keep running the race (2 Tim.4:7), keep shining the light (Matt.5:16), stand firm and hold your position (Ef.6:13) - on the moral and spiritual high ground. May God continue to bless South Africa.

* Picture on front cover: The march to Parliament to put the spotlight on the political oppression of Parliament's employees.

South Africa's People's Parliament: The dream deferred.

First published in 2014

Published by Gabriel Campher at Smashwords

Website: www.thecandidate.org.za

Copyright published edition: Gabriel Campher 2014

Copyright text: Gabriel Campher 2014

All rights reserved: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright owners. All necessary steps were taken to contact the relevant copyright owners. If there has been oversight, please contact the publisher.

Smashwords Edition, License Notes: This e-book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This e-book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

ISBN : 978-0-620-59739-5 (electronic copy)

ISBN : 978-0-620-59738-8 (print copy)

\--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY

PREFACE

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction (A dream deferred!)

CHAPTER 2 – Parliament: Supporting Democracy

CHAPTER 3 – Legal Framework for Political Activities

CHAPTER 4 – Review Of Parliament's Policies – 2005

CHAPTER 5 – Dismissal - 2006

CHAPTER 6 – Dismissal - 2007

CHAPTER 7 – Dismissal - 2008

CHAPTER 8 – Dismissal - 2009

CHAPTER 9 – Dismissal - 2010

CHAPTER 10 – Dismissal - 2011

CHAPTER 11 – Dismissal - 2012

CHAPTER 12 – Pension - 2006, 2007

CHAPTER 13 – Illegal SAHRC - 2008

CHAPTER 14 – Illegal SAHRC - 2009

CHAPTER 15 – Illegal SAHRC - 2010

CHAPTER 16 – Illegal SAHRC - 2011

CHAPTER 17 – Illegal SAHRC - 2012

CHAPTER 18 – Illegal SAHRC - 2013

CHAPTER 19 – Illegal SAHRC - 2014

CHAPTER 20 – General Elections 2014 and Beyond

CHAPTER 21 – Conclusion

\-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glossary

Ubuntu – 'humaneness' in isiZulu (One of South Africa's 11 official languages)

Batho pele – 'people first' in Sotho (One of South Africa's 11 official languages)

Franciscan Blessing – Blessing of Franciscan Order [established in 1209 by St. Francis]

Freedom Charter – the 1955 document that contains the demands and dreams of South Africa's oppressed people under Apartheid.

Presiding Officers – They preside over the plenary sessions in the two Houses of Parliament: The Speaker in the lower house (National Assembly) and the Chairperson in the upper house (National Council of Provinces).

AG – Auditor-General

AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ANC- African National Congress [political party]

Broer- 'brother' in Afrikaans

CC- Constitutional Court [statutory body]

CCMA - Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration [statutory body]

CPF- Community Police Forum [statutory body]

Coloured – people of 'mixed-blood' heritage [Called 'African-American' in the USA]

COPE- Congress of the People [political party]

COSATU- Confederation of South African Trade Unions [national federation of unions]

DA- Democratic Alliance [political party]

FF- Freedom Front [political party]

FF+- Freedom Front Plus (FF and other right-wing parties) [political party]

HIV- Human Immune Virus

HR – human resources

ID- Independent Democrats [political party]

IDASA- Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa [NGO]

IEC- Independent Elections Commission [statutory body]

IFP- Inkatha Freedom Party [political party]

MP- Member of Parliament

MPP- Member of Provincial Parliament

NA- National Assembly [lower house of Parliament]

NCOP- National Council of Provinces [upper house of Parliament]

NGO- Non-governmental organisation

NEHAWU- National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union [part of COSATU]

NOTA- none of the above

NP- National Party [political party]

NNP- New National Party [political party]

PMU - Policy Management Unit [HR unit of National Parliament]

PP- Public Protector [statutory body]

PAC – Pan-Africanist Congress [political party]

RSA- Republic of South Africa

SACP- South African Communist Party [political party]

SAHRC- South African Human Rights Commission [statutory body]

SANDF – South African National Defence Force [statutory body]

SARS – South African Revenue Service [statutory body]

SAPS – South African Police Service [statutory body]

SGB- School Governing Body [statutory body]

SMS – short message service (via mobile phone)

SU- University of Stellenbosch

UDF- United Democratic Front [political movement; active during Apartheid years]

UDM- United Democratic Movement [political party]

UN- United Nations

UNESCO- United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

US- United States

USA- United States of America

VAP- voting age population (i.e. people who are 18 years and older)

WC-Western Cape Province

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Preface

'A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single footstep.'

Chinese proverb

Some people believe that I started this journey (or 'crusade for justice') on 6 March 2006, when I was summarily fired after nearly ten years of dedicated service. The offence: I exercised my constitutional right to stand for public office. Parliament (RSA) seemingly had an Apartheid-era policy that prohibited the candidature or appointment of employees to statutory bodies. However, at the time, some staff members were serving on statutory bodies and were unknowingly contravening the policy, because it was generally unknown. A signed copy of this policy was never produced to staff members or at my disciplinary hearing.

The disciplinary process was a 'comedy of errors', because the defence team missed various opportunities to secure a reinstatement:

(a) the policy was generally unknown – my supervisor, a management board member and about thirty staff members signed a petition that they did not know of the policy,

(b) the policy was not consistently applied – two staff members participated in previous elections and another was a member of a statutory body,

(c) there was no signed workplace policy,

(d) the policy was not consistent with the Constitution of the country and therefore invalid.

These issues were however not argued convincingly at the CCMA, due to the quality of the union representation. However, the SAHRC and Public Protector would play the role of the 'White Knight' at a critical point in this political nightmare. In the final analysis, my dismissal turned out to be a blessing, because once I was outside, I saw the real Parliament and the real ANC – and the broken promises (and shattered dreams) of Freedom. This is the story...

I believe that my political journey started when I was born, as a Coloured in a Eurocentric world - a world in which everything revolves around White people. This fact was driven home by the fact that I was born in South Africa, where racial discrimination was written into the law books – Legal? Yes. Moral? No!

My political consciousness was awaken at high school during the 1985 and 86 'States of Emergency'. Schools and communities were disrupted with stones, teargas and rubber bullets - the call was made: "Liberation, before education!" During marches and mass meetings the cry of the People was: "What have I done..? What have I done..? My only sin is the colour of my skin..." The 'State of Emergency' and the state-sponsored violence were frantic attempts by the Apartheid government to crush the people in their fight for political rights, but it merely postponed the inevitable.

My political consciousness was given revolutionary content, when I attended the University of the Western Cape (UWC) in Bellville. UWC was a beacon of hope for disadvantaged students in the 1970s to early 1990s. It provided an opportunity to these students, including myself, to obtain a tertiary qualification in a country where 75% of the education budget was spent on Whites, which formed a mere 13% of the population.

I obtained a teaching qualification and left my hometown, Bellville in 1992, to teach in the northern part of the Cape Province in the towns of Springbok, Nababeep and Loeriesfontein. With the birth of the new South Africa in 1994, the province was named the "Northern Cape". I was elected chairperson of the African National Congress (ANC) in Loeriesfontein and was central in the organisation and campaign of the ANC during South Africa's first democratic general elections in 1994 and the local government elections in 1995. I later served on the municipal council as an ANC councillor.

My political journey was always driven by a revolutionary fire that was fuelled by the desire for justice, fairness and integrity. As such, I joined the ANC, which was a collection of individuals that subscribed to the same values. The ANC was the only progressive social and political force that worked to improve the lives of the poor, the disadvantaged and the marginalised. It was then automatic for me to vote "ANC" in the general elections of 1994, 1999 and 2004, as well as the local government elections in 1995 and 2001.

I became however disillusioned with the arrogance and nepotism of the ANC government and decided not to vote 'ANC' in the 2006 local government elections, because I would become an accomplice in the ANC's betrayal of the people. I also decided not to vote for the other parties, which did not have any substantive policies, but were merely 'anti-ANC'. As such, I decided, in 2006 to stand as an independent candidate in my municipal ward, to bring about change in and services to my ward.

This book contains my political thoughts, as well as the many letters that I wrote and received in my endeavour to prove the injustice that was committed against me and my former colleague Shamiel Abbas of the Independent Democrats. Abbas trusted his political party to fight for him, but the fight never materialised – he lost 24 years of dedicated service in the public service.

In this book, I have arranged the letters into three themes: (a) illegal and unconstitutional dismissal, (b) fight for my pension and (c) the illegally constituted SAHRC. In the first few chapters, I have included information to contextualise the political situation, the vision of parliament and my ethical world-view, which would inform an appreciation and understanding of the letters that would appear in the other chapters.

I put markers (*) for you, the reader to help you make sense of the writing – the South African context, the terminology and whether a letter was responded to. This is accentuated by proverbs; words of wisdom from famous people and the Bible. The format of the book could have been in one of two ways;

1. putting a letter and its response together or

2. putting the letters in chronological order, even though a response might have been received many months later.

I went for the second option, because it indicates the frustration and disbelieve that I went through – waiting for a response, waiting for a helping hand, whilst the dreams of my family were being destroyed.

When former President Nelson Mandela (Madiba) was released from prison, he said: "Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another".

I am afraid that it did happen in a free South Africa, which (almost?) nullifies the sacrifices of people, like Madiba, Steve Biko, Desmond Tutu and Kader Asmal, to name but a few. The ideal of a People's Parliament is an ideal that many South Africans and other nationals have fought for, but we realise that it is an ideal that is a work in progress – the People must stay continuously vigilant to ensure that Parliament is for the People and by the People.

GABRIEL CAMPHER

February 2014

Cape Town

\-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 1

**Introduction**

A dream deferred!

If you have run with footmen, and they have wearied you; Then how can you contend with horses? God – The Book of Jeremiah (12:5)

A dream deferred by Langston Hughes

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore and run

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Or crust and sugar over a syrupy sweet

Maybe it just sags like a heavy load

Or does it explode?

In the book, Thabo Mbeki: The dream deferred, Mark Gevisser wrote that former President Mbeki, never really knew his father (Govan), because of his father's political activities (always in meetings, on the run from police or in prison). As such the young Mbeki had to give up (defer) his own personal dreams; of having a father and a happy childhood, to obtain freedom for millions of South Africans. The day when he finally met his father, who spent 26 years on Robben Island (with Nelson Mandela), it was not as father and son, but as comrades, because he had been assisting the ANC's president, Oliver Tambo for decades to run the movement from outside South Africa.

In order to survive in exile, Thabo Mbeki had to be paranoid about infiltration by the Apartheid government's secret police, but that paranoia filtered into his leadership style, which eventually led to his ousting ('recall') as president of a free South Africa. One can add that he had to defer his dreams, but at what cost to him and the nation, especially the millions that were infected and affected by HIV and AIDS, because of his paranoia about foreign pharmaceutical companies and his denial that Aids is caused by a virus? Mbeki's deferred dream 'dried up, like a raisin in the sun'.

Prof Adam Habib, then of the University of Johannesburg, explained the 2008 xenophobic violence at the time in the country as an explosion, a volcanic eruption. The signs, 'like a sore', were visible for a long time, but the ANC government conveniently ignored the stench. In 1994, 1999 and 2004 the people voted for 'houses, security and comfort' (as per the Freedom Charter), but the money was diverted into the pockets of the fat cats. The dissatisfaction of these homeless and jobless South Africans eventually exploded into murder and mayhem that were aimed at black foreigners, who were competing against them for the same limited resources – jobs, food and shelter. The deferred dream of the ANC government 'exploded'.

In 1955, at the height of Apartheid, many community organisations met in Kliptown (Soweto) as 'The Congress of the People" to put their demands on paper. This list of demands or rights (or dreams!) developed into the Freedom Charter, which informed our Constitution (Act 106 of 1996) in a free South Africa. The Freedom Charter contained dreams like; "the People shall govern" and "there shall be houses, security and comfort". Fifty-nine (59) years later, in a free and democratic South Africa, the dream of a People's Parliament, a Parliament that speaks for the People (not for fat cats), has not been realised. Members of Parliament swear allegiance to the Constitution and the People, but in their actions they toe-the-party-line to protect their parliamentary seats.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (the Arch), one of the most respected South Africans, locally and internationally, indicated that he would not vote in the 2009 general elections. Will he vote in 2014, which will mark 20 years of a free South Africa? The dream that the Arch dreamed in 1994, has not been realized. The big question is this: "What will the millions of other South Africans do with their power - their vote? Will their dreams 'just sags like a heavy load', will it 'dry like a raisin in the sun' or will it 'explode'?

\-----------------------------------------------------------

The Notion of a "People's Parliament"

'A king is a king, because of people.'

\- Zulu proverb (South Africa)

Before 1994, the majority of South Africans was not represented or spoken for in the Parliament of South Africa. They did not elect ordinary men and women, that is, Members of Parliament (MPs), to represent them in Parliament, where the laws of the country were made. The Apartheid laws, which were applied to them, were not of their making and not to their benefit. It only served the interest of a small minority of the population, which was deliberately White. This was the antithesis of what the South African People yearned for - a Parliament that put them at the centre of government.

In 1955, various anti-Apartheid organisations met as the Congress of the People in Kliptown, Johannesburg to compile a charter (list of demands/rights/dreams) that would herald in a free South Africa. The famous first article of this charter, called the 'Freedom Charter' is:

1. The People Shall Govern

Every man and woman shall have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate for all bodies, which make laws. All the people shall be entitled to take part in the administration of the country. (my emphasis)

The oath/affirmation of a new Member of Parliament

"I, AB, swear/solemn affirm that I will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa and will obey, respect and uphold the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic; and I promise to perform my functions as a member the National Assembly or delegate of the National Council of Provinces to the best of my ability" [from: The South African Constitution, (Act 108 ,1996)]

It has become clear that a vast majority of MPs do not really understand the oath or affirmation and their duty to speak for the People. Parliament has become a 'Party Parliament', because the MPs put the interests of their political party, before that of the People.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

The dream of a 'People's Parliament' deferred

It seems that the dream of a People's Parliament has been deferred in the post-Apartheid South Africa. This nullifies the Freedom Charter, the Constitution and the oath of the MPs. It also means that the many people that were killed, maimed, imprisoned or exiled, because of Apartheid was in vain. The once respected freedom fighters have become greedy politicians, who have the 'What's in it for me?' attitude. Some of them, like a former ANC spokesman and now an MP for COPE, said blatantly that he did not join the anti-Apartheid struggle to be poor!

The Constitution created various institutions to strengthen our democracy (government by the people) against a too strong executive branch. These institutions include Parliament, the Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Independent Electoral Commission. Of all these institutions, Parliament, is supposed to be the supreme institution of democracy, but it has systematically weakened itself and the other institutions, in favour of the executive. In the Westminster parliamentary system, the junior party members are in Parliament and the senior members are in government. As such ambitious Parliamentarians will always tow-the-party-line to ensure that they will be promoted to a cabinet position. The result is that these institutions, especially Parliament, are too weak to properly hold the executive accountable to the People. The People's Parliament has been deferred...

The only way to strengthen our democracy is for ordinary citizens to elect men and women of integrity to Parliament – men and women that will honour their oath or affirmation and speak for the South African People. Only the citizens can ensure that the People's Parliament becomes a reality. The power is in their hands! As the Freedom Charter states; "Let the People govern!"

This notion of a People's Parliament is based on the willingness of the People to give up some of their freedoms and power to leaders to rule them – no, to lead them. The French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, called this willingness the 'general will' in his book, the Social Contract of 1762.

"I MEAN to inquire if, in the civil order, there can be any sure and legitimate rule of administration, men being taken as they are and laws as they might be. In this inquiry I shall endeavour always to unite what right sanctions with what is prescribed by interest, in order that justice and utility may in no case be divided.

I enter upon my task without proving the importance of the subject. I shall be asked if I am a prince or a legislator, to write on politics. I answer that I am neither, and that is why I do so. If I were a prince or a legislator, I should not waste time in saying what wants doing; I should do it, or hold my peace.

As I was born a citizen of a free State, and a member of the Sovereign, I feel that, however feeble the influence my voice can have on public affairs, the right of voting on them makes it my duty to study them: and I am happy, when I reflect upon governments, to find my inquiries always furnish me with new reasons for loving that of my own country." [from 'The Social Contract' - Book I]

It is thus the duty of the People to remain vigilant and engaged to ensure that the leaders use the People's power appropriately and to the benefit of the people – and then the People shall govern!

\-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliament of South Africa

Mapping the future; Strategic Map - 2004 to 2009

VALUES

Our values are the set beliefs that guide the management of Parliament. We keenly believe in the following;

\- Constitutionality

\- People-centredness

\- Co-operative government

\- Professionalism

\- Good institutional governance

MISSON

Our mission indicates the purpose of parliament, its reason for existence as outlined in the mandate. Our mission therefore is;

As the freely elected representatives of the people of South Africa, our mission is to represent, and to act as a voice of the people, in fulfilling our constitutional functions of passing law and overseeing executive action.

VISION

The future dream and ambition of Parliament being within sight but out of reach.

Our vision therefore is;

To build an effective people's Parliament that is responsive to the needs of the people and that is driven by the ideal of realizing a better quality of life for all the people of South Africa.

A people's Parliament to transform an entire society. Establishing a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.

A people's Parliament of freely elected representatives building on the foundation of a democratic and open society based on the will of the people, their participation and access to Parliament.

A people's Parliament providing a national forum for public consideration of issues, which includes educating, informing an involving the people of South Africa in its processes and acting as a voice of the people.

A people's Parliament co-operating with other spheres of government as it deepens and entrenches our democratic values.

A people's Parliament working with continental and international bodies to create a new democratic and participatory world order.

A people's Parliament passing good laws, and scrutinizing and overseeing executive action, as it moves to improve the quality of life of the people of South Africa, building a united and democratic South Africa.

* This 2004 parliamentary document mapped out the future for Parliament over a five-year period. Whether they met these goals in 2009 or even in 2014; you'd be the judge.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 2

Parliament: Supporting Democracy

'Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.' - Nelson Mandela

The Asmal report

'A person makes a living by what he receives, but he makes a life by what he gives.'

\- Norman McEwan

"The Ad hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter 9 and Associated Institutions" was established on 21 September 2006 and reported to the National Assembly on 31 July 2007. The committee was tasked to; (a) review the appropriateness of the appointment of commissioners and office bearers to enhance consistency, accountability and affordability; (b) review institutional governance to enhance accountability and efficiency; (c) improve the coordination of these state institutions with the executive, parliament and other stakeholders and (d) review the funding model. This multi-party committee was chaired by Prof Kader Asmal, MP.

The committee found that state institutions, which were established by the Constitution to strengthen democracy (also called Chapter 9 bodies) followed different and inconsistent funding processes. This could compromise their independence, because their budgets were obtained via the state departments, i.e. the executive. The committee recommended that these institutions' budgets should be part of Parliament's budget vote to ensure independence from the executive, so that their oversight over the executive could be enhanced.

In the foreword of the committee's report, it was stated that the report was aimed at six constituencies; (a) the eleven state institutions reviewed, (b) Members of Parliament, (c) the public, (d) the executive, (e) Parliament and (f) the media.

It is worth noting what it said about the public, that is the South African people. It stated that the South African people should use the report to deepen their understanding of these institutions, which were established to protect and promote their human rights. The successful execution of these institutions' mandate has a direct bearing on the quality of life of South African citizens, especially the poor, rural and marginalised. These state institutions were given the power (by the Constitution) to act on behalf of, especially these people, who do not have access to the courts to enforce their rights. The other tasks of these institutions are; (a) to restore the credibility of the state and the rule of law in the eyes of citizens and (b) to ensure that the state becomes more open and responsive to the needs of the South African people.

The Ad hoc Committee positioned its investigation within the historical context of a country that was still in its infancy among other democratic nations. The drive of the post-apartheid government was to transform the nation's oppressive and secretive culture, in which the human rights of the black majority were disrespected to a culture in which human dignity and rights are celebrated. This led to the establishment of state institutions (the 'protectors') that had to protect constitutional democracy by monitoring the observance and implementation of a culture of human rights. The eleven institutions that were reviewed are independent of the government and (should) exercise their functions 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. They are not accountable to executive, but to the citizens through the elected representatives in Parliament, because they had to report to Parliament, at least once per year.

Institutions that were reviewed

All the institutions that were reviewed, except the National Youth Commission were the products of the negotiations for a new constitution in a democratic South Africa and are therefore established by the Constitution. The other 10 state institutions are;

a) The Public Protector

b) The South African Human Rights Commission

c) The Commission for Gender Equality

d) The Auditor-General

e) The Electoral Commission

f) The Public Service Commission

g) The Financial and Fiscal Commission

h) The Pan South African Language Board

i) The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa

j) The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Financial matters

Even though the Constitution states that these state institutions are independent, their funding mechanisms do not enhance this requirement. All these institutions' budgets are located within the budget allocations of different state departments. The only exception is the Public Service Commission, which has its own budget vote. The state departments merely act as conduits for the transfer of funds, because these institutions submit their budget proposals to the national treasury. These institutions then accounted to Parliament and not the department.

The Ad hoc Committee found that this arrangement had a negative impact on the perceived independence of these state institutions, which have to support constitutional democracy. The committee then recommended that the budgets of these institutions should be located within Parliament's budget, because (a) these institutions are accountable to Parliament and (b) it would enhance their independence from the executive.

I am however of the view that these institutions should also be independent of Parliament, because Parliament, being part of the wider public sector could also be the subject of their investigations, as it happened in my case. These institutions should also have their own budget votes, like the Public Service Commission. This would make them truly independent of the executive and Parliament, the two arms-of-government where politics and not ethics is the driving force.

2. Appointments and removals

The Ad hoc Committee acknowledged "that the different mandates, powers and functions of these institutions meant that their composition and appointment procedures could not be identical", however these appointment procedures should be consistent with the principle of upholding and protecting the independence of these institutions.

The president and cabinet ministers currently appoint the commissioners and office bearers, as in the case of the Public Protector and Auditor-General. The Ad hoc Committee found that the president's powers are non-discretionary, which meant that he/she could not refuse to make the appointments recommended by Parliament. The recommendation is preceded by a public process in which a parliamentary committee calls for nominations from the public to fill vacancies in the institutions. The nominees are then shortlisted and interviewed by the committee, where after a list of names are recommended to the president or the relevant minister to make the appointments.

The Ad hoc Committee noted that there were instances where the president did not appreciate the non-discretionary nature of his powers. For example in 2002, Parliament recommended eleven persons to be appointed to the South African Human Rights Commission, as per the appropriate legislation, but President Thabo Mbeki decided to appoint only five commissioners. The same blunder was repeated in 2009 when President Jacob Zuma only appointed six commissioners. He was incompetently assisted by Parliament who only recommended six people, even though the applicable legislation states; 'there shall be a Human Rights Commission, which shall consist of a chairperson and 10 members'.

A second instance where the president did not appreciate the non-discretionary nature of his powers was with the appointment of the commissioners of the Commission for Gender Equality. Parliament made the recommendation in October 2006, but the appointment was only made in May 2007. The delay was blamed on the inability (!) of the presidency to determine the terms of office of full-time commissioners.

The Ad hoc Committee recommended that the president should make the appointments, but that his/her powers should remain non-discretionary. The ministers should not play any role in the appointments to these independent institutions.

The Ad hoc Committee found that the president appointed the chairpersons of certain institutions, while other institutions elected the chairperson from amongst themselves. The independence of the institutions could be 'tarnished' in the former situation, while the independence and legitimacy of the institution is enhanced in the later situation. The Ad hoc Committee identified another method to appoint the chairperson and that is by the parliamentary committee charged with filling the vacancies. The Ad hoc Committee then recommended that legislation should guide the process, whether the institution itself or the relevant parliamentary committee appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson.

The current status if the Asmal report

The report has gathered dust, for the most part, on some shelf in Parliament. When Prof Asmal died in June 2011, almost four years after the tabling of the report in Parliament, there was no movement on the findings or recommendations. A unit was later established in the Office of the Speaker that would deal with Chapter 9 bodies, as was recommended by the report. Whether it would be a mere liaison-office or an office of substance has to be seen. However, there was no movement on the other matters, except the appointment of the SAHRC's commissioners in 2014, in terms of a new Act.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Society Advocacy Programme (CSAP)

Purpose and objectives

The CSAP was established on 30 October 2007, with the aim to develop a code of good practice to guide the working relationship between the chapter 9 bodies (C9s) and Parliament. This would address the concerns about the independence and impartiality of these independent constitutional bodies. They are unique in that they are independent of, but accountable to Parliament.

Some commentators are of the view that C9s should not advocate or lobby Parliament, but should support Parliament. Others believe that the C9s complement Parliament's oversight role, because they have wide constitutional mandate and independent status of these bodies, as well as the fact that Parliament itself can be investigated by the C9s, for example the Office of the Public Protector (OPP) and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC).

A constitutional court case (Van Rooyen and Others vs State) in 2002 provided the general test for judging the independence for organs of state. The determining factor identified by the court was "whether from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable and informed person, there will be a perception that the institution enjoys the essential conditions of independence" [Van Rooyen and Others v S and Others 2002 (8) BCLR 810 (CC)]. In other words, an institution must not only be independent. It must also be seen to be independent.

The constitutional court identified the following requirements for 'independence';

a) financial independence;

b) institutional independence, in particular control over its administrative decisions;

c) appointment procedures and security of tenure of appointed office bearers.

Working relationship: Parliament & Chapter 9 Bodies

The C9s and the executive are accountable to Parliament, but Parliament's oversight over these two institutions is different – Parliament may direct the work of the executive, which uses public money to realise the rights of citizens. It can however not direct the work of the C9s, which stands in a complementary or supportive role to Parliament and has constitutionally guaranteed independence from Parliament.

The working relationship should take cognizance of the fact that the C9s should execute its duties in an independent and impartial manner.

Parliament's oversight role is however limited by the dynamics of party politics, because it is a political or partisan institution. It has a close relationship with the executive (another partisan institution), because it elects the head of the executive (i.e. the president of the country) and the cabinet ministers are members of Parliament. In addition, a too close working relationship should not prevent the C9s from exercising its potent powers of litigation and investigation.

It is because of its special constitutional watchdog status that the C9s can function as an impartial, independent and credible source of information on the achievements and failures of government policies. This provides Parliament with an important tool to oversee the executive.

The C9s does not have a duty to support Parliament, nor is it subordinate to Parliament. It may assist Parliament, but to regard it as subordinate would risk the very status that makes the C9s (potentially) effective in complementing Parliament's oversight role. On the other hand, the Constitution places a clear obligation on Parliament to assist and protect the OPP and SAHRC to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness. [* In my case, Parliament deliberately undermined the work of the OPP and the SAHRC]

A code of good practice has certain benefits for Parliament and the C9s;

a) Parliament is a national forum for public debate, which the C9s can use to bring issues to Parliament for national debate;

b) the C9s can influence legislative policy makers by making submissions to parliamentary committee;

c) Parliament and the C9s can complement their oversight over the executive and the C9s may strengthen parliament's oversight role by providing expert information that is sourced independently of the executive.

d) Parliament has legislative and other powers that the C9s does not have and can complement the efforts of the C9s, especially the OPP and SAHRC to protect human rights and administrative justice.

A code of good practice between Parliament and the C9s would enhance constitutional democracy, because it would help to avoid inappropriate behaviour and guides the OPP, Auditor-General, Commissioners and staff towards parliamentary advocacy activities that befit the constitutional status of Chapter 9 bodies. A code of good practice can also address most of the ongoing challenges in parliamentary processes, including those in relation to civil society organisations active in parliamentary advocacy.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report of the Independent Panel Assessment of Parliament – 2009

The assessment of Parliament by an independent panel was initially conceived as part of Parliament's engagement with the South African Peer Review Mechanism, which formed part of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) of the African Union. The project was subsequently initiated with the appointment of an independent panel in December 2006 by the presiding officers of Parliament. The terms of reference of the panel were to inquire into, report on and make recommendations on the extent to which Parliament meets its constitutional mandate to promote and entrench democracy.

The panel included; Ms Pregs Govender (chairperson), Adv Selby Baqwa, Mr Colin Eglin, Ms Judith February, Mr John Kane-Berman, Mr Papati Malavi, Ms Koko Mashigo, Mr Aubrey Matshiqi, Prof Sipho Seepo, Mr Max Sisulu and Dr Frederick van Zyl Slabbert.

It meant that Parliament had to consult with those people that will be affected by legislation, even though the majority of those who participate in public hearings at parliament are well resourced. This situation has to change, if Parliament wants to represent society at large and achieve its vision of becoming a 'People's Parliament'.

The chairperson stated in the foreword of the report that;

"a strong, independent Parliament requires strong, independent parliamentarians and committees, who act to safeguard their integrity and the integrity of Parliament. This integrity, however came under question during the arms-deal, the HIV/Aids debacle, Travelgate and the dissolution of the Scorpions, because the citizens viewed Parliament as a rubber stamp of the executive and/or the ruling party. Parliament was not executing its oversight role over the executive, as a watchdog, but has become a lapdog of the executive".

The report revealed several challenges;

a) the link between the electorate and Parliament - surveys indicate that there is generally a very poor understanding among the public of parliamentary procedures and opportunities for active participation in parliamentary processes.

b) the perceived lack of accountability of MPs to the public can be ascribed to the party-list electoral system. This system promotes accountability and loyalty of MPs to their parties and not the electorate or the Constitution. This happens, because the parliamentary seat belongs to the party and not the individual MP. As such, political parties have the power to remove MPs, which discourage them to express individual viewpoints, especially those that oppose the views of the party.

Evaluation criteria

The panel used the Constitution, based on the role and function that it ascribed to Parliament to develop five evaluation criteria, which were; accountability, responsiveness, openness, participation and effectiveness.

Oversight mandate

Oversight over the executive can only be effective, if Parliament asserts its independence and embraces the authority conferred on it by the South African people through the Constitution. There are various mechanisms that Parliament, as the representative of the people, can use to hold the executive accountable to it. However, it is the independence and authority with which these mechanisms are applied that will ultimately determine the extent to which oversight contributes to improved governance and the delivery of services to the people – put simply, it depends on the integrity of the MPs.

State institutions supporting democracy (ISD)

In addition to Parliament's oversight tools, the constitution makes provision, in chapter 9 for specialised bodies that assist Parliament with the oversight role. Even though these bodies are accountable to the National Assembly (i.e. the lower house of Parliament), in terms of their activities and performance of their functions, they enjoy constitutionally guaranteed independence.

ISDs have a unique role to play with regard to oversight, because they possess technical expertise, conduct extensive investigations and exercise specialised functions, like the auditing of public accounts. The two key roles of the ISDs in relation to Parliament are;

(a) to act with Parliament as 'watchdog' bodies over the government and organs of state and,

(b) to contribute to parliamentary oversight over the executive by providing information that is not derived from the executive.

The ISDs engage Parliament in two ways;

(a) by submitting an annual report in the National Assembly that provide an account of its activities and use of the budget, and

(b) by submitting substantive reports, like the SAHRC that, in terms of the Constitution has to submit reports on the measures taken by organs of state to realise socio-economic rights, i.e. access to water, food, health care, housing, education, clean environment and social security. These reports are important sources of information, which can enhance the oversight work of Parliament. However, these reports are not given sufficient consideration in Parliament, due to limited time (2-3 hours per annum!) that some ISDs have before the parliamentary committees.

Recommendation with regard to ISDs

1. The current party-list electoral system should be replaced by a mixed system which would capture the benefits (for the electorate) of both party-list and constituency-based electoral systems,

2. An extensive monitoring schedule should be implemented to ensure that the recommendations of the Oversight Model report drive Parliament's oversight processes,

3. The attendance policy for MPs should be finalised,

4. The quality of reports should be improved, so that these reports could be adopted and not merely noted in the Houses of Parliament,

5. The system tracking executive responses to SCOPA reports should be strengthened procedurally and administratively,

6. Parliament should continue monitoring the implementation and impact of the offset commitments of the arms deal,

7. Parliament must engage with the reports of the ISDs, which provide information that would enhance its oversight over the executive

8. Parliament should give consideration of the many reports on oversight that were tabled; e.g. (a) "Speeding transformation: Monitoring and Oversight in the NCoP", (b) "NCoP Second Term 1999-2004", (c) Report of the ad hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter 9 and Associated Institutions", (d) "Task Team on Oversight and Accountability".

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 3

Legal Framework for Political Activities

'The rights of every person is diminished, when the rights of one person is threatened.'

John F. Kennedy (former President of the USA)

Statutory Bodies

'One generation plants a tree, so that the next generation can enjoy the shade thereof.'

\- Chinese proverb

* A statutory body is a body that is created or established by a statute or law.

For example;

(a) National Parliament, provincial legislatures and municipal councils, are established by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as legislative bodies (i.e. bodies that make laws).

(b) The Human Rights Commission, Public Protector and Electoral Commission are also

established by the Constitution.

(c) Other statutory bodies include;

(i) Community Police Forums, established by the South African Police Act.

(ii) School Governing Bodies, established by the South African Schools Act.

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE ACT (Act No 68 of 1995)
Section 19 - Establishment of community police forums

(1) A Provincial Commissioner shall, subject to the directions of the member of the Executive Council, be responsible for establishing community police forums at police stations in the province which shall, subject to subsection (3), be broadly representative of the local community.

(2) A community police forum may establish community police sub-forums.

(3) Subject to section 23(1) (b), the station commissioner and the members designated by him or her from time to time for that purpose, shall be members of the community police forum and sub-forums established at the police station concerned.

SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS ACT (Act No 84 of 1996)
Section 16 – Governance and Professional Management of Public Schools

Subject to this Act, the governance of every public school is vested in its governing body and it may perform only such functions and obligations and exercise only such rights as prescribed by this Act.

[as substituted by section 2 of Act 57 of 2001, Education Laws Amendment Act]

PARLIAMENT'S POLICY

Parliament's 'resignation' policy, which barred staff members from statutory bodies, is a remnant from our undemocratic Apartheid past and from the above it is clear that it had some unintended consequences in a post-Apartheid and constitutional South Africa. Staff members were summarily dismissed, if they wanted to serve their communities by merely standing as a candidate for a:

(a) Community Police Forum or a School Governing Body;

(b) Legislative body, like a Municipal Council.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laws Regulating Political Activities in South Africa

1. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Act 106 of 1996)

BILL OF RIGHTS (CHAPTER 2)
Section 19 - Political Rights

1) Every citizen is free to make political choices which include the right -

(a) to form a political party

(b) to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for a political party and

(c) to campaign for a political party or cause.

2) Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections for any legislative body...

3) Every citizen has the right –

(a) To vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution,

and to do in secret; and

(b) To stand for public office and, if elected to hold office.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CHAPTER 7)
Section 158 – Membership of Municipal Councils

(1) Every citizen who qualified to vote for a Municipal Council is eligible to be a member

of that Council, except –

(a) Anyone who is appointed by, or is in service of the municipality and who has not been

exempted from this disqualification in terms of national legislation;

(b) Anyone who is appointed by or in service of the state in another sphere and who has

been disqualified from membership of a Municipal Council in terms of national legislation;

(c) Anyone who is disqualified from voting for the National Assembly...

(d) A member of the National Assembly, a delegate to the National Council of Provinces or a member of a provincial legislature...

(e) A member of another Municipal Council...

(2) A member who is not eligible to be a member of a Municipal Council in terms of subsection (1)(a), (b), (d) or (e) may be a member of the Council, subject to any limitations or conditions established by national legislation.

2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT (Act No 32 of 2000)

SCHEDULE 2

11. Participation in elections

A staff member of a municipality may not participate in an election of the council of the municipality, other than in an official capacity or pursuant to any constitutional right. (my emphasis)

3. LEGISLATION LIMITING POLITICAL RIGHTS

Legislative Bodies

The only legislation that limits the rights of employees working for legislative bodies is the Municipal Systems Act, but it only applies to Municipalities, not National or Provincial Parliaments. This law allows candidature for public office, that is 'participation in elections'.

Security Services

The South African Police Service Act (Act 68, 1995) and the Defence Act (Act 42, 2002) limit the political rights of their members, but does not prohibit candidature for public office, only appointment. It means that a police officer or soldier has to resign his/her commission, if he/she wants to take up public office.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Workplace Policies Regulating Political Activities

The role of workplace policies is to provide the framework for employees in which to do their work, not to violate their rights as citizens, human beings and employees. Whereas Parliament, the supreme institution for democratic practice, violated its employees' political rights, the Western Cape Provincial Parliament and municipalities allowed political participation.

Workplace polices should be in line with the labour laws and more importantly with the Constitution of the country, which is the fundamental or basic law – "any law or policy that is inconsistent with it is invalid", as per section 2 of the Constitution.

Parliament's workplace (in 2006) was invalid, unfair and illegal in two ways;

(a) It was inconsistent with section 19 of the Constitution

(b) It was inconsistent with the Labour Regulations Act, because the CCMA found that this so-called 'voluntary resignation' is in fact an unfair dismissal.

1. PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Draft Policy (December 2005)

Should an employee be elected to a position as a full-time councillor, she/he will have to resign from Parliament. As regards those who wish to take up part-time positions, they must ensure that they undertake their duties as a councillor as far as possible outside official hours of work. Specific approval has to be granted that the employee can retain her/his remuneration, as required.

Voluntary Resignation (Date Approved: Unknown)

If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Parliamentary Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.

Policy (as of 1 July 2006)

An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the National Assembly or a delegate to the National Council of Provinces or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer of the Independent Election Commission.

2. WESTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT

Political Involvement (Implementation Date: 1 August 2000)

The staff of the Provincial Parliament renders an equal service to members of all political parties. Staff may under no circumstances undertake work on behalf of political parties at office.

The above does not exclude that staff may have their own political convictions. Staff must however act in such a manner that their personal convictions do not influence their service delivery or cause Members of Parliament to doubt their impartiality.

Staff members, who are subscribed members of political parties, may not hold any office in the party, unless so authorised by the Secretary to Parliament. Staff members may be nominated as official candidates on party lists. The Secretary may instruct a staff member to take compulsory leave, with or without pay, for the period preceding the elections.

3. MUNICIPALITIES

A staff member of a municipality may not participate in an election of the council of the municipality, other than in an official capacity or pursuant to any constitutional right (i.e. political rights) – [from Local Government: Municipal Systems Act (Act No 32 of 2000)]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Political Activities of Employees in the United States

1. EMPLOYEES OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

HOUSE ETHICS MANUAL (US Congress website: Download - 31 December 2012)

Candidacy of a House Employee for Elective Office (Chapter 4)

At times a House employee wishes to run for an elective office while continuing as an employee. There is no absolute prohibition against a staff member becoming a candidate for a state or local elective office, but such activity is subject to a number of restrictions. Most importantly, the individual's employing Member must consent to the candidacy, and the employee must comply with the rules and requirements on performing campaign activity.

Those requirements include that the employee perform congressional duties that are commensurate with the compensation he or she receives from the House – and thus that compensation be reduced proportionately with any reduction in the employee's time in the congressional office – and that any campaign activity be performed on the individual's own time, and outside of congressional space. Further guidance on the matter of staff candidacy for local office is provided in Chapter 5 of the House Ethics Manual. An employee considering a candidacy for elective office should contact the Committee for specific advice.

However, different considerations apply when a Member is departing office, and one of the Member's employees wishes to become a candidate to succeed the Member. In that circumstance, the Committee has taken the position that the staff member must terminate his or her employment in the congressional office upon becoming a candidate. Among the considerations on which this Committee determination is based are the significant time demands of a congressional candidacy and the strong potential for conflict of interest when an employee is seeking to succeed the employee's employing Member.

The Committee has also determined that, subject to certain restrictions, a staff member contemplating becoming a candidate to succeed the individual's employing Member may engage in pre-candidacy, "testing the waters" activities without terminating his or her congressional employment. The restrictions include that the individual may do so only if his or her employing Member consents, the employee complies with the rules and regulations that are generally applicable to campaign activity by employees, and the employee's activities do not go beyond "testing the waters" as defined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The permissible "testing the waters" activities are described in the FEC publication, Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees. Among the activities that are prohibited under that advice are any that indicate that the individual has in fact become a candidate, such as the use of general public political advertising, or the raising of funds beyond those reasonably necessary to determine whether one should become a candidate.

Holding Local Office (Chapter 5)

At times House employees wish to hold an elected or appointed local government office. While no statutory provision or House rule absolutely prohibits a House employee from holding a local office while remaining on the House payroll, the applicable provisions of state or local law on eligibility for office must be consulted. In addition, House employees must take care to avoid any undertaking that is inconsistent with congressional responsibilities.

The holding of a local office by a House employee is subject to all of the restrictions and limitations on outside employment set out in this chapter. For employees who are paid at or above the senior staff rate, the limitations include the outside earned income limitation and all of the ―fiduciary relationship restrictions. As a result, a senior staff person is generally prohibited from receiving compensation for service as an elected or appointed government official.

In addition, regardless of their rate of pay, all House employees must adhere to the prohibition against using any House resources to perform the duties of their local office, the requirements that those duties be performed outside the congressional office and on their own time, and the prohibition against representing anyone else – including the local government by which they are employed – before federal agencies.

Furthermore, in making public comment on issues or otherwise dealing with the public, an employee who serves in a local office should always make clear in which capacity the employee is acting. In addition, the employee is prohibited from providing any special treatment to constituents in a congressional capacity and should discourage any suggestion that they will receive preferential treatment from the employee's congressional office.

A staff member considering running for or serving in a local office should first consult with his or her employing Member on the matter, and should refrain from doing so if the Member objects. When the demands of the local office are such that it is impossible as a practical matter for the employee to maintain an absolute separation of the two positions – or when the employing Member concludes that the two positions are incompatible – then the employee will have no alternative but to decline or terminate service in the local office, or to terminate congressional employment.

2. EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

(Source: Office of Special Counsel)

Passed in 1939, the Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, District of Columbia government, and some state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs.

The Hatch Act Reform Amendments, 1993, permits most federal employees to take an active part in partisan management and partisan political campaigns. Nevertheless, concerns about the political activities of government employees are almost as old as the Republic.

Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the United States' third president, heads of the executive departments issued an order which stated that while it is "the right of any officer (federal employee) to give his vote at elections as a qualified citizen... it is expected that he will not attempt to influence the votes of others, nor take part in the business of electioneering, that being deemed Columbia and certain employees of state and local governments."

In passing the Hatch Act, Congress affirmed that partisan activity government employees must be limited for public institutions to function fairly and effectively. The courts have held that the Hatch Act is not an unconstitutional infringement on employees' first amendment right to freedom of speech, because it specifically provides that employees retain the right to speak out on political subjects and candidates.

All civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and the Vice President, are covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.

These employees may not:

(a) use official authority or influence to interfere with an election,

(b) solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency,

(c) solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labour or other employee organizations),

(d) be candidates for public office in partisan elections,

(e) engage in political activity while: on duty, in a government office, wearing an official uniform, including wearing partisan political buttons on duty and/or using a government vehicle.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 4

Review of Parliament's Policies

'You can't remake the world without remaking yourself. Each new era begins within. It is an inward event with unsuspected possibilities for inner liberation.'

Ben Okri (African poet)

A colleague and I were fired in 2006, because we contravened a generally unknown workplace policy, but the run-up to this fateful event started the previous year.

In June 2005, Parliament established a policy unit within its human resources department. The aim of this unit was to bring the workplace policies of Parliament in line with post-Apartheid labour legislation and the Constitution. The unit reviewed all the workplace policies and in September 2005 it produced drafts policies. These drafts were approved by management for employee input. Implementation of the policies was set for January 2006. In December 2005 the policy unit organised three-day workshops at a hotel for all the departments of Parliament. My department or section, i.e. the 'committee section' attended the workshop from 05 to 07 December 2005. We workshopped each and every draft policy; from the smoking policy to the HIV/AIDS policy to the employee conduct policy.

Most of the drafts were not controversial, e.g. the smoking policy. It was generally accepted that smoking was not allowed at the workstations, but in the designated smoking areas. At that stage national legislation was already passed that made it illegal to smoke in public areas, accept in designated areas. It was then logical that the workplace policy should be in line with national legislation. Even the 'employee conduct policy', which had the widest application, was not controversial. For example, 'sleeping on the job' was a no-brainer. The political conduct of employees also did not create controversy, because it was accepted that citizens could and should exercise their political rights, taking the politically oppressive history of South Africa into account.

The draft policy stated;

"Article 8.4 (i) Should an employee be elected to a position as a full-time councilor, she/he will have to resign from Parliament. As regards those who wish to take up part-time positions, they must ensure that they undertake their duties as a councillor as far as possible outside official hours of work. Specific approval has to be granted that the employee can retain her/his remuneration, as required."

At that stage, no old or current policy was mentioned. We accepted that the workshopped and unanimously accepted draft policy would be signed off by management as the approved policy.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[* The e-mail below was send in September 2005 (?) to all staff.]

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

INTRODUCTION THE POLICY MANAGEMENT UNIT

The Secretary to Parliament has established the Policy Management Unit (PMU), which came into existence on 1 April 2005.

The PMU derives its mandate from the third objective flowing from the vision of Parliament. The strategic objective of the PMU is to help build an effective and efficient institution.

The following are the key objectives of the PMU;

(i) reducing cost of service delivery

(ii) policy development

(iii) policy coordination and support

(iv) policy monitoring

The PMU is responsible for providing research support, analysis and advice to the Secretary to Parliament on all aspects of policy development, coordination, implementation and monitoring.

The immediate focus of the PMU is to refine all existing policies and to provide policies where gaps exist.

INVITATION

The PMU invites you to make submissions on any aspect of Parliamentary Service policies to enrich the process of refining and development of policies. Your input is important and the PMU respects your views.

The values of the PMU are: hip – Honesty, Integrity and Professionalism.

Please send your submissions to the Head: PMU, Room V100, Old Assembly Building.

REMEMBER: TOGETHER WE CAN BUILD AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICICIENT INSTITUTION.

\---------------------------------------------------------------

[*E-Mail to Mr Joe Phaweni (Head of Policy Management Unit) - Date: Sept. 2005 (?)]

Dear Mr Phaweni

Herewith my e-mail in response to the establishment of the PMU.

The practice of Parliament's vision and values:

Vision of Parliament:

To build an effective People's Parliament that is responsive to the needs of the people and that is driven by the ideal of realising a better quality of life for all the people of South Africa (source: Strategic Map of Parliament: 2004-2008).

Values of Parliament:

Constitutionality, people-centred, co-operative government, professionalism, good institutional governance (Strategic Map of Parliament: 2004-2008).

I fully support the above-strategic vision and values, as well as the new drive by management to broaden oversight thereof. I however believe that the fundamentals are not in place. Let me mention two examples;

Example 1

November 2004 - Parliamentary official (X) applied for an internal job.

March 2005 - X goes for an interview.

May 2005 - Appointment (external) is made

09 June 2005 - X is notified (through the post office mail) that X is unsuccessful.

This situation would be acceptable in any classical government department/agency

(except the new South African Revenue Service under Mr Gordhan) and even in Parliament, before Mr Dingani.

What made matters worse for X was the fact that he had to work with the new incumbent, in the same team, on a daily basis and was only 'informed' that the vacancy was filled when the recruit was introduced. In addition, the expectation of management is that the working relationship should be effective and productive!?

I acknowledge that there are shortages of staff, but if we set goals, and if these goals are

important, then systems and mechanisms must be established to achieved these goals. In the military 'shining boots and uniforms' are so important at the literal and symbolic

level, that the previous defence force created the 'auxiliary service' (unskilled workers)

to shine the boots and prepare the uniforms of officers.

In my humble opinion, additional staff should be employed to deal with the administrative aspects of recruitment or the supervision/management of the current staff should be improved. Internal and external applicants/customers create impressions of Parliament, as an employer by the in/effectiveness of the recruitment process (or any other process).

I believe there should be (if there is not) a policy that unsuccessful internal applicants should be informed of the outcome of the selection process, as soon as the recommended applicant accepts the position. I support the policy (and implementation thereof) that external applicants are informed (via the advertisement) that 'no correspondence after a month' imply that they were unsuccessful.

Example 2

13 May 2005 - X wrote to 'Section Manager of HR Administration' about the lack of

'official' feedback on the selection process.

10 June 2005 - no response yet, not even an acknowledgement.

X wrote this letter to the section manager on the 13th of May, but does not know whether

his letter was received or whether the matter was being addressed. This employee will

find it difficult to internalise the vision and values of Parliament, because he did not receive people-centred and professional service. This domino effect will roll out to external customers with the end-result that the image of Parliament will suffer and the achievement of the vision will become wishful thinking.

In my humble opinion 'acknowledgement of receipt' is a formality, because a standard memo/letter can be used for this purpose. If management views this (administrative) function as important, (I do), then dedicated staff should be identified or appointed to deal with this issue and the communication process in total.

I firmly believe that we are on the right track, but that certain values and ethical practices, as well as the application of 'duty', 'obligation', 'responsibility' and 'accountability' need to be inculcated. Parliament has wonderful policies, but it is not only through implementable policies that the mission will be executed and the vision realised, but the ethical will to implement them.

Thank you

Gabriel Campher

[* No response was received to this e-mail. At that stage, I did not know that I would experience, anything but the 'hip' values (honesty, integrity and professionalism), when I contravened an Apartheid-era workplace policy.]

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

PARLEMENT VAN SUID-AFRIKA

POLICY MANAGEMENT UNIT (PMU)

Group 1: Workshop on draft policies (5-7 December 2005)

Small group discussion guidelines

Please follow these guidelines to allow everybody to participate

1. Encourage people to talk for themselves, use the word "I" rather than "we".

2. Encourage people to be honest with themselves. Encourage integrity.

3. Allow participants to read/listen to the policies.

4. Ask each person to comment on any area.

5. Summarise the comments where possible.

6. Ask each person to provide at least one suggestion, if the group feels that any improvements need to be made.

7. Summarise the suggestions where possible.

8. Record all statements on transparency sheets where possible.

9. Present findings to plenary sessions.

Policies for discussion – Group 1 (Committee Section)

Day 1

0. Introductory speeches 09:00

1. Parliamentary Records 11:00

2. Travel accommodation and S&T 12:00

3. International participation 14:00

4. Acceptance of gifts and benefits 15:00

5. Smoking policy 15:30

Day 2

6. Performance management 08:30

7. Promotions 09:30

8. Succession planning 10:30

9. Career management 12:30

10. Training and development 14:00

11. Employee conduct 15:00

12. Recruitment and selection 16:30

Day 3

13. Leave of absence 08:30

Closure 09:30

\--------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 5 **:**

Dismissal - March 2006

'My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in (your) weakness.'

God (2 Cor. 12:9)

You're fired!

A blue Monday, if ever there was – 6 March 2006, a day I will never forget!

It started like any other Monday, very quietly, because Members of Parliament were still in their constituencies, wrapping up the local government elections that took place on Wednesday, 1 March 2006. At about 11:00, I saw Ms Zanele Mene, the manager of my section (Committees), near my cubicle. She said that I should see her at 14:00 in her office. Ms Mene is about my age and started at Parliament in January 1996, that is six months before my starting date – also as a Committee Secretary (or Committee Clerk). She went quickly through the ranks – she became senior Committee Clerk and then moved to the Western Cape Provincial Legislature to become section manager of its committee section at. She returned to Parliament, as section manager of the Legislation and Proceeding Section. She was later horizontally transferred to the committee section as section manager, but not before the section's manager and assistant manager under whom she served in committee section were strategically moved to other sections.

I had my lunch (13:00-14:00) at my desk, as usual, while my colleagues went to the cafeteria. At about 14:00, I went to Ms Mene's office, but she was on the phone and I went back to my cubicle. When I returned five minutes later, my supervisor, Mr Ben Kali, was also in the office. I sat next to Mr Kali and Ms Mene started the meeting.

Ms Mene: Gabriel, I heard that you were nominated in the Local Government Elections.

Campher: [surprised] No, I was not nominated. I stood as an independent candidate. I did not stand for any political party.

Ms Mene: The policy of Parliament is that, if you are nominated, or appointed to a statutory body, then it is regarded that you have resign voluntarily.

Campher: [Shocked, speechless] But... I did not resign. The policy that we workshopped in December 2005, allowed one to be a part-time councillor.

Ms Mene: That was just a draft policy. This is the current policy [holding a piece of paper].

Campher: Is there nothing that one can do, because I did not know of this policy?

Ms Mene: No. I already cleared it with Labour Relations. It's unfortunate, but somebody has to do this.

Campher: [speechless]

Ms Mene : Do you want a copy of the policy?

Campher: Er... yes. [took the page and left the office]

I went to my cubicle and sat quietly for possibly five minutes. I then informed my committee's stakeholders, via e-mail, that I was moving on. I then gave my portable electronic equipment to Ben Kali. He came to me after 10 minutes and said that Zanele wanted my electronic access card (permit). I was taken aback, because at that point I realised that it was not a bad joke, but reality. If I gave the permit, then the umbilical cord with Parliament would be severed for real. I asked whether I could hand it over the next day, because I had to bring the Assistant Committee Secretary, who I shared with three other Committee Secretaries, up-to-speed with the committee's work. It was agreed to. The next day I could not access my computer, but gave the relevant documents to the Assistant Committee Secretary. I handed 'my' permit to Ben Kali and left the building.

That night I had a difficult question to answer. How do you tell a wife and three children (then respectively 3, 8 and 13 years old) that you have been fired? There will be no more food in the fridge, bread in their lunch boxes, a roof over their heads and petrol in the car to drive them to school. How does one break the news to your wife – "Something happened today. I lost my job." or "Sweetheart, I want to tell you something... I was fired." It was only then that I understood why some men, kill their whole family and commit suicide. It is not the financial uncertainty, but the disgrace and the indignity – how could they look their family and peers in the eye? This option would be selfish, because the four women in my life have their own destinies, their own stars that they need to follow. These unique lives are a gift and there is a purpose to these lives. Somehow, I broke the news, but to this day, I cannot remember the details.

My former colleagues invited me back to National Parliament on pay-day (15 March 2006) and gave me an envelope. It contained money - money that they raised amongst themselves. I was overwhelmed, because it was more than a financial contribution - the moral and emotionally support was priceless...

I did not want to accept (initially), because of pride, but there were hungry mouths to feed at home. On that same day, Parliament paid R785 (US$ 128,74) into my bank account as my monthly salary. The housing subsidy and medical aid contributions were deducted. It was devastating, because I did not know how to cover all my family's monthly expenses.

Parliament's bosses wanted to hurt me, but in the process they hurt my family even more. The anger swelled in me, especially when my children are in pain and I have to sit in queues for hours at the hospital, because I did not have medical aid to go to a private hospital. In June, that same year, we went to our house-doctor with Le-Kesha (3 years old), who had severe tummy-aches. The doctor then referred us to Tygerberg Hospital, a public hospital, for suspected appendicitis. We arrived at 15:00 and waited and waited. Now and then a nurse or student-doctor would pass us, while Le-Kesha twisted and turn with the pain. Le-Kesha was eventually examined and referred for X-rays and then it was more waiting. Eventually at 00:30 (yes the next day) she was taken to theater for an operation. She was returned after a few hours - the operation was a success.

I reluctantly had to leave my wife and daughter to return to the other two children, who were alone at home. I also had to get some sleep, because I had to go to work in a few hours as a substitute teacher. My wife decided to sleep at the hospital so that Le-Kesha could see a familiar face when she woke up. She would spend the rest of the night in a big chair, without any blankets, trying to get some sleep. I took my leave, but when I returned an hour later, with a blanket for her, she was uncomfortably asleep in the chair. When I put the blanket over her, she woke up and tears shot into her eyes – she did not expect me back. Today, Le-Kesha is healthy, but the big scar on her belly will forever be a reminder of that day and about the treatment that our people receive in public hospitals.

As if that was not enough, Jamie (then 8 years old), broke her arm in October 2006. We took her to Tygerberg hospital. It tore us apart to see Jaime in pain and there was nothing that we could do – not even take her pain and make it our own. The waiting at Tygerberg Hospital was not as exhaustive, as in the case with Le-Kesha. The arm was put in a cast, but she had to stay overnight for observation, because it was a bad fracture. The arm healed quickly, but thereafter she had to visit the physiotherapy regularly, to ensure that flexibility returned to the arm. We went to the day-hospital initially, but due to the long wait for appointments, we decided to go to a private physiotherapist for a few sessions. We could however not afford to stay in the programme.

Today, the arm cannot bend as freely as before and she is still wary about using the arm fully. We were later slammed with a huge bill (calculated at private patient rates) by the hospital for the two girls, because we failed the means test, i.e. our income was too high.

The standard of living of our family dropped significantly and the three girls missed out on many opportunities: music and swimming lessons, school excursions, smaller or no birthday parties, etc. We are not out of the woods yet, but this experience has opened our eyes to the suffering that other people had to endure, due to financial and other constraints. We can show empathy, because we have been there - we are there. I firmly believe that this is the remarkable way in which God has put our lives on another trajectory, so that we can execute His will for us and for other people, who are in our circle of influence.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

[OFFICE OF THE SECTION MANAGER: COMMITTEES]

06 March 2006

Dear Mr Campher,

Re: Voluntary Resignation on account of Candidature for Statutory Body

On Monday 06 March 2006, I was informed that you were nominated as a Candidate of a statutory body. In terms of Chapter 8, clause 4(1) of Parliaments Policy Directives and Implementation Procedures, if, a staff Member accepts a nomination, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily, with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination.

In view of the above, we confirm that your resignation has been accepted and that your contract of employment has been terminated with effect from 06 March 2006.

We wish you every success in your future endeavours.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Ms Z Mene

Section Manager: Committees

[* This letter was handed to me, when I was fired.]

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

07 March 2006

Mr Z Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sir

RESIGNATION - CANDIDATURE FOR STATUTORY BODY

My section manager informed me yesterday (Monday, 06 March 2006) that I have "resigned voluntarily on account of my candidature for a statutory body" (see attachment).The facts are that I stood, unsuccessfully as an independent ward candidate in the local government elections and at no time did I act in a partisan manner at work. I have served the members of my committee loyally, ethically and even-handedly for almost ten years.

I humbly request that you rescind the decision to terminate my services, because:

l. I was unaware of the applied policy, as I worked on the draft policy on employee conduct, which was supposed to be effective from 3 January 2006.

2. The objectives of the applied policy are diametrically opposed to the objectives of the new policy, in letter and in spirit.

3. The new policy is effective from 3 January 2006 or it will come into effect soon.

Thanking you in advance

(signed)

G CAMPHER

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

[OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT]

07 March 2006

Mr G Campher

Committee Secretary

Dear Mr Campher,

Resignation - Candidature for Statutory Body

I acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter dated 07 March 2006 with regard to the above.

The matter is receiving attention and you will receive further communication in due course.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

N Ndaba

For SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail:

From: Mergedis Nathan *

To: All Committee Section Staff

Date: 07 March 2006

Subject: Fwd: Dear Colleagues

<<Zanele Mene 06 March 2006>>

Dear Colleagues

Please note that Mr Gabriel Campher is no longer employed by Parliament.

During the Local Government elections that took place on 1 March 2006, Mr Campher stood as an independent candidate in his ward. Unfortunately he did not win the race.

In terms of Chapter 8, paragraph 4(1) of the Policy Directives of Parliament, if a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for elections or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he or she accepts such nomination or appointment.

In his case he resigned voluntarily on the day he stood in as an independent candidate.

We regret the incident. We wish him well.

[* Ms Nathan was the personal assistant of Ms Mene, the Committee Section manager]

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE MANAGER: LEGISLATION AND OVERSIGHT DIVISION

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Secretary to Parliament

FROM: Mrs N P Keswa (Manager: Legislation & Oversight Division)

DATE: 8 March 2006

SUBJECT: Voluntary Resignation as a result of standing as a candidate for a statutory body

1. PURPOSE

To terminate services of Mr. G Camper in terms of chapter 8(4)(1) of the Policy Directives

2.BACKGROUND

(i) On Monday, 6 March 2006, I was informed that Mr. G Camper was nominated as a candidate of a statutory body, to stand for local government election as an independent candidate.

(ii) In terms of chapter 8, clause 4(1) of Parliament's Policy Directives and Implementation Procedures, if a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination.

3.RECOMMENDATION

In view of the above, we request the Secretary to Parliament to accept the resignation of Mr. G Camper and to have his contract of employment terminated with effect from 01 March 2006, the date of the Local Government elections.

(signed)

MRS N.P. KESWA

L.O.D. Manager

Date: 08/03/2006

The Secretary to Parliament's comments:..............................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................

(signed)

ZA DINGANI

Date: 14/03/2006

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE: 'THE CAPE TIMES'

Double blow as parliamentary official loses local election...and then his job.

14 March 2006

BOYD WEBB - Political Bureau (Cape Times)

A PARLIAMENTARY official not only lost a ward to the Democratic Alliance (DA) in the local government election, but was also dismissed from his job in parliament. Parliament's policy apparently states that if a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from service with effect from the date that the nomination or appointment was accepted.

This came to light yesterday after a meeting of the National Assembly's defence committee was postponed. MPs said that committee secretary Gabriel Campher was fired for standing as an independent candidate. Contacted for comment, Campher said he was given less than a day last week to clear his desk after almost 10 years of service.

"It was so cold and clinical, my broer [brother]. I did not even know I did anything wrong until my manager called me in and asked for my access permit," said Campher. He said he was unaware of the policy. Campher said his problems started when he was asked to stand as an independent candidate in ward 22 in Belhar. "I don't even know how many votes I got because in politics the winner takes all and the DA won in my ward," he said. Campher said he believed he had not breached parliament's codes of conduct prohibiting electioneering. Parliamentary media officer, Sivuvile Mbambato yesterday said the matter was being looked into.

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Parliamentary Office of Professor Kader Asmal, MP

20 March 2006

Mr Zingile Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

Parliament

Cape Town

Dear Mr Secretary

Mr Gabriel Campher

I am writing to you entirely without any prompting on the part of anyone and at nobody's request. I do so because I feel that a grave injustice may be done if you do not intervene.

I understand that Mr Gabriel Campher has had his employment with Parliament terminated, as a result of his standing as a ward candidate (an independent) in the recent local government elections. He has worked with me as the Portfolio Committee secretary. I was its chairperson for over 16 months and am therefore qualified to some extent, to refer to his qualities as secretary. As a tough task-master, I expected a high degree of commitment from the staff and drove them hard. Cultures differ from one committee to another, but our Committee met frequently, organised a number of visits and produced some excellent reports for the National Assembly.

Mr Campher responded very quickly to the demands made of him. Like many other secretaries, he found it difficult to write reports, but he was open to mentoring and advice and 'grew' with the job. I write all this in order to put his 'resignation' in context. His breach of clause 4(1) was inadvertent, as I know that he is occasionally impetuous and self-willed, but he has no malice. He was not cocking a snoot at authority.

You may recall that a senior member of parliament continued with his full-time civil service job in Gauteng, while he was a member. All this only became when he retired from parliament! As Minister of Education, I was aware that countless number of teachers stood for a statutory body. In fact, hundreds continued as members, while they were employed by the state.

The rule your office invoked must be interpreted in the light of section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution, which in the provisions relating to 'political rights' enjoins us to respect the right of 'Every adult citizen'... to stand for public office and if elected to hold office'.

The termination of employment can be understood if the public office holder does so full-time and occupies a very public and senior post. If elected, Mr Campher would not be a full-time employment outside.

It would be a pity if this matter had to be resolved in our Courts of law. To temper Rules by reference to justice is not a weakness, especially if the present rule is out of time with our democracy.

He was foolish not to ask for permission, but this should not result in enormous suffering for his family and the loss of a valuable parliamentary servant.

I very much hope that you would be able to take this representation into account.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Professor Kader Asmal, MP

[* I do not know whether Mr Dingani ever responded to Prof Asmal.]

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

24 March 2006

CCMA

78 Darling Street

Cape Town

Dear Sir or Madam

RE: NEHAWU obo MR G CAMPHER VS PARLIAMENT OF R.S.A.

We confirm receipt of Nehawu's referral dated 24 March 2006, a copy is attached for ease of reference.

Kindly note that Mr Campher had in terms of Parliament's Policy Directives and Implementation Procedures, voluntarily resigned from Parliament's service and as such the CCMA had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

We hope you find the above in order.

Yours truly,

(signed)

Mpumelelo Tabata

Labour Relations Practitioner

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - April 2006

Workers in dispute with Parliament

ANESCA SMITH

(Newspaper Article: Die Burger – 10 April 2006)

CAPE TOWN – A man from Belhar declared a dispute against Parliament after he and his colleague lost their jobs after they stood as candidates in the local government elections. The dispute by Mr Gabriel Campher, until recently a committee clerk of the defence committee of parliament, will be heard by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

Campher and his colleague, Mr Shamiel Abbas of Parliament's procurement section were informed on 6 March 2006 that they 'resigned voluntarily' due to their candidature in the elections. Campher stood as an independent ward candidate and Abbas stood as a ward candidate for the Independent Democrats. Tomorrow Campher will be represented by the union, NEHAWU.

According to him all staff members of parliament were workshopped in December 2005 on a new policy allowing candidature, which would come into effect as of 3 January 2006. On that date all the staff members did not complete the workshop and it was postponed. He was informed by his section manager that the old policy was still in force.

[* This article was originally in Afrikaans.]

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - May 2006

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

3 May 2006

Dear Mr Campher

RE: RESIGNATION-CANDIDATURE FOR STATUTORY BODY

Your letter dated 07 March 2006 refers.

The main reason for the policy governing your resignation is to ensure that staff at parliament remains non-partisan in the performance of their functions and provision of services to Members of Parliament.

In view of the above, I am unable to accede to your request.

I wish you everything of the best in your future endeavours."

Yours sincerely

(signed)

ZA Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 May 2006

The Registrar

Constitutional Court

Private Bag X1

Constitutional Hill

Braamfontein

2017

Dear Sir/ Madam

PETITION

I hereby wish to petition the Constitutional Court to pronounce itself on the constitutionality of a workplace policy of Parliament (RSA). A copy of this petition was served on Parliament on 10 May 2006 [appendix 1].

The Policy

"If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Parliamentary Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment." – Chapter 8(4)(1) of Parliament's Policy Directives and Implementation Procedures [appendix 2].

Reality

The Constitution (Act 108, 1996) states: "Every citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected to hold office." – [Section 19(3)(b)]

The said policy effectively implies that 'no official of Parliament can stand for public office', whereas the Constitution allows for that political right, taking into account limitations, if any. This policy denies the Parliamentary employee his/her constitutional political and economic rights, because by accepting nomination, the employee loses his/her job, even though there is no guarantee that he/she will secure appointment to a statutory body.

Context

I stood as an independent candidate in the local government elections on 1 March 2006 and was informed that I (unknowingly) resigned from the service [appendix 2]. I responded to management on 7 March 2006 [appendix 3]. This matter is currently before the CCMA, as an unfair dismissal. 'Conciliation' was on 11 April. The Commissioner did not issue a certificate, but gave the Secretary to Parliament, until 25 April to apply his mind on reinstatement. The response of the Secretary was negative and the matter is now up for 'arbitration'.

National Legislation that limits candidature

There is no national legislation, including the legislation in terms of which employees of Parliament is appointed [appendix 4], that prohibits an employee of Parliament to stand for membership of a Municipal Council, as per section 158(1)(b) of the Constitution of South Africa; "Every citizen who is qualified to vote for a Municipal Council is eligible to be a member of that Council, except – Anyone who is appointed by or in service of the state in another sphere and who has been disqualified from membership of a Municipal Council in terms of national legislation".

I have also attached measures [appendix 5] that regulate the participation of Public Service personnel in elections, even though Parliament is not part of the Public Service, to establish certain principles.

Plea

I understand that there are many matters in front of the Court, but I would appreciate your urgent attention, because I am unemployed since 6 March 2006 and would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

MR G CAMPHER

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

Private Bag X1

Constitutional Hill

Braamfontein

2017

Johannesburg

29 May 2006

Mr G Campher

BELHAR

7493

Our Ref: 5/9/2006

Dear Mr Campher

I have been directed by the Chief Justice to reply to your letter of 10 May 2006.

I am directed to inform you that the role of the Constitutional Court is to interpret the

Constitution and this it does in the context of matters (litigation) brought to it in terms of the Rules of the Court.

The functions and jurisdiction of the Court in section 167 of the Constitution and its mandate is not open-ended. It would not be appropriate for the Court to answer questions that are not the subject of specific litigation. A body such as the Human Rights Commission would be in a better position to discuss with you the issues you raise and, if necessary, refer you to relevant decisions of this and other courts. The functions of the Human Rights Commission are set out in section 184 of the Constitution.

If you feel that you constitutional rights have been violated you may at this stage approach the Cape High Court for relief. If you do not have the funds for this, please contact the Cape Town Justice Centre.

You can contact them at:

Cape Town Justice Centre

PO Box 516

Cape Town

8000

Docex 19

Tel no: (021) 426 4074 or 425 4126

Fax no: (021) 426 5766

Yours sincerely

(signed)

TM Sefuba

Chief Director in the Office of the Chief Justice

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - June 2006

June 2006

The Director

CCMA

Private Bag X9167

Cape Town

8000

SUBPOENA OF WITNESSES

As the referring party (case no. WE4716-06), I wish to request the CCMA to subpoena Mr Z Dingani, Mr J Phaweni, Ms Z Mene and Mr B Kali to provide evidence at the arbitration hearing on Monday, 28 August 2006. Mr Kali was my supervisor, while Mr Phaweni and Ms Mene are the managers of the Policy Unit and Committee Section of Parliament, respectively. Mr Dingani is the Secretary to Parliament.

Background / Motivation

I stood as an independent candidate in the local government elections of 01 March 2006, which was in contravention of a policy of my employer. The said policy*, which was used to terminate my services, will be central to the arbitration hearing. I believe that the witnesses can unpack certain issues around this policy, because my central defence is that the policy was unknown to me.

A. Mr Z Dingani (Secretary of Parliament)

In Mr Dingani's response to my letter for reinstatement he stated "the main reason for the policy is to ensure that staff is non-partisan in the workplace". I totally agree with non-partisanship in the workplace, however he need to clarify how he came to the conclusion that:

(i) I knew of the policy and deliberately contravened it,

(ii) I was partisan in the workplace.

This he should do in the context of the 'Vision Summit' of Parliament's managers in July 2005, where he stated "to have an effective functional institution, our systems and processes must be well-defined. We have to ensure that our policies and procedures enable us to meet the challenges of realizing the vision". He also said "to lead and inspire, requires a people-centered leadership".

B. Mr Joe Phaweni – Head (Policy Unit)

Mr Phaweni can provide information on the nature, usage and familiarity of the policy. He can also provide the recorded (audio & written) information on the workshop that was held from December 2005 to April 2006 on a new draft policy that was diametrically opposed to the said policy. The draft policy stated that a Parliamentary employee could be a part-time councillor, but throughout the workshop, specifically on 5 and 6 December 2005, when Committee Section was workshopped., no mention was made of the then current (said) policy, as a reference point for the draft policy. The impression was created that there was no existing policy at the time. The workshop was attended by all of Parliament's 1500+ employees on a section-by-section basis.

C. Ms Zanele Mene – Section Manager (Committee Section)

Ms Mene was my section manager and the one that informed me that I transgressed the said policy. She can provide evidence that I did not know of the policy - my response to the news was total shock, because my employment was summarily terminated, after almost ten years of service.

D. Mr Kali – Supervisor (Cluster One – Committee Section)

Mr Kali was with me in the meeting, when Ms Mene informed me of my transgression. He can provide evidence that I heard of the policy only then – my (and his) response was absolute shock.

Thanking you in advance.

(signed)

REFERRING PARTY (G Campher)

*The said policy: If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the (Parliamentary) Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.

\----------------------------------------------------

June 2006

The Director

CCMA

Private Bag X9167

Cape Town

8000

WAIVER OF WITNESS FEES

As the referring party (case no. WE4716-06), I wish to request the CCMA to waive the witness fees in terms of section 142 (7)(c) of the Labour Relations Act (Act 66, 1995), when it subpoenas Mr Dingani, Mr Phaweni, Ms Z Mene and Mr B Kali. These four people work within walking distance of the CCMA's offices in Darling Street and their testimonies would require less than an hour of their time.

Thanking you in advance.

(signed)

REFERRING PARTY (G Campher)

\----------------------------------------------------

VERBAL STATEMENT BY MR ROBBIE KARREMAN

Employment

I was employed by Parliament (RSA) for about 35 years. I took early retirement in 2005 at the rank of section manager of the Questions section.

Political Activities of staff members

In June 2004, one of my subordinates, Ms Thandi Makoena *, stood as a candidate for a political party in the 2004 general elections. She wanted to resign so that she could campaign for her party, but I convinced her to take unpaid leave, because there was no guarantee that she would win a seat in National Parliament or the Provincial Legislature of the KwaZulu-Natal province.

I then submitted a memorandum to Mr Mfenyane, the Secretary to Parliament, seeking approval for my subordinate to take unpaid leave. Attached to my memorandum were the estimated cost implications (financial and other) to the institution, if leave was granted. Leave was subsequently granted and Ms Makoena participated in the elections. She was however unsuccessful in the elections and returned to Parliament to resume her duties.

I made the application for leave on the basis that an employee wanted to use three weeks of her leave allocation to pursue her political rights. I presumed that it was approved for the same reason.

At the time, I was not aware of a workplace policy that presumed that an employee resigns when he/she stands for, or is elected to a statutory body. The said policy referred to is:

"If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the (Parliamentary) Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment."

This statement was made to the best of my recollection.

(unsigned)

MR R KARREMAN

[* Not her real name. Robbie Karreman made a verbal statement, because he did not want to be involved in any hearing.]

\----------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

POLICY ON EMPLOYEE CONDUCT

Approved:

(signed)

B MBETE

Speaker: NA

Date: 20 June 2006

(signed)

MJ MAHLANGU

Chairperson: NCoP

Date: 23 June 2006

Policy on Employee Conduct

1. Introduction and Background

Parliament expects the conduct of its employees to be above reproach and worthy of the trust of both Parliament and the South African public. As representatives of Parliament, employees have a responsibility to uphold the good name and values of Parliament. In line with the vision and values of Parliament, this policy outlines the expected code of employee conduct.

8.4 Political Participation

(b) An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the National Assembly or a delegate to the National Council of Provinces or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer of the Independent Election Commission.

13. Review of Policy:

This policy must be reviewed six months after coming into operation.

14. Date of Effect

The policy is effective from 1 July 2006.

[* Only relevant articles of the policy have been copied.]

\----------------------------------------------------

23 June 2006

Mr J Kollapen

The Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission

Private Bag X 2700

Houghton

2041

Dear Mr Kollapen

VIOLATION OF POLITICAL RIGHT

I hereby request the advice of the Commission with regard to an alleged violation of my constitutional human rights.

Context

I stood as an independent candidate in the local government elections on 1 March 2006 and was afterwards informed that I (unknowingly) resigned from the employment of Parliament, on the basis of an unknown policy.

The Policy

"If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the (Parliamentary) Service voluntarily, with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment."

[Chapter 8(4)(1) of Parliament's Policy Directives and Implementation Procedures]

The Human Right

The Constitution (Act 108, 1996) states: "Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office." – [Section 19(3)(b)]

The said policy effectively implies that 'no official of Parliament can stand for public office', whereas the Constitution allows for that political right, taking into account limitations, if any. This policy denies the Parliamentary employee his/her constitutional political and economic rights, because by accepting nomination, the employee loses his/her job, even though there is no guarantee that he/she will secure appointment to a statutory body.

National Legislation that limits candidature

There is no legislation, including the legislation [Act 33, 1974] in terms of which employees of Parliament is appointed, that prohibits an employee of Parliament to stand for membership of a Municipal Council, as per section 158(1)(b) of the Constitution;

158. (1) "Every citizen who is qualified to vote for a Municipal Council is eligible to be a member of that Council, except –

(b) anyone who is appointed by, or in service of, the state in another sphere, and receives remuneration for that appointment or service, and who has been disqualified from membership of a Municipal Council in terms of national legislation" (my emphasis).

Plea

I understand that there are many matters in front of the Commission, but I would appreciate your urgent attention, because I am unemployed since 1 March 2006 and would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

MR G CAMPHER

[* No response was received.]

\----------------------------------------------------

LEGAL AID BOARD

Justice for All

Cape Town Justice Centre

85 St George's Mall

Cape Town

8000

Our Ref: R Bodart/rb/X58005506

29 June 2006

Mr G Campher

Belhar 7493

Dear Sir

RE: YOUR APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID

Previous correspondence herein with specific reference to our letter to you dated 9 June 2006.

Please furnish u with further instructions on or before 16 September failing which we are proceeding to close your file.

Yours sincerely

Per: (signed)

RENAAT BODART

(CAPE TOWN JUSTICE CENTRE)

[* I did not receive a letter, dated 9 June 2006. I applied for legal aid in person at the Cape Town office.]

\----------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - July 2006

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

17 July 2006

Attention: The Case Manager

CCMA

78 Darling Street

Cape Town

8001

Dear Sir / Madam

RE: MR G CAMPHER VS PARLIAMENT OF RSA: CASE REF.: WF 4714-06

We confirm receipt of Mr Campher' request to arbitration.

Mr Campher's referral for arbitration is out of time. Further, we note that no application for condonation has been submitted. The referral to arbitration is incompetent and the circumstances the matter should not be scheduled for arbitration.

(signed)

Mpumelelo Tabata

(Labour Relations Practitioner)

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - August 2006

Pre-arbitration (G Campher vs Parliament)

Date: Tues, 22 Aug 2006

Time: 15:00 – 16:00

Venue: HR Offices, 5th floor, 90 Plein St

PRESENT

Parliament

Adv Jan Theron- Private legal representative (Jan Theron Attorneys)

Mr Sean September- Unit Manager: Labour relations

Mr M Tabata- HR Practitioner: Labour relations

Applicant

Mr G Campher (employee) *

Aim of meeting – to reach agreement on 'issues of agreement' and 'issues of dispute'.

1. Subpoenas

Subpoenas were issued for Merrs Dingani, Phaweni and Kali.

Employer argued that it was unusual for managers to testify for applicant/employee. Subpoena was not necessary for Mr Kali, who could be allowed to get time off to testify. Earlier in the day, the CCMA requested that the applicant rethink the subpoena for Merrs Dingani and Phaweni.

2. Documents

Documents were exchanged. Mr Campher gave the employer a copy of the draft policy, as at 5 and 6 Dec 2005, which Adv Theron did not have. Copies of the recording (written & audio) of the Dec 2005 workshop would be forwarded to Mr Campher.

[To the reader: This was never forwarded.]

3. Information

The issue of Thandi Mokoena**, who stood in 2004 elections and Mr Rossouw, who was a municipal councillor were raised. Mr September stated that he was not aware of these cases. Applicant added that another employee (Mr S Abbas) 'contravened' the policy.

4. Compensation or Re-instatement

When asked, the applicant stated that he would like to be reinstated.

Meeting adjourned at 16:00

* I attended the meeting alone, because the union did not want to attend. They were unhappy, because I initially consulted with a private lawyer.

** Not her real name

\----------------------------------------------------

YAHOO Mail

DATE: Wed, 23 Aug 2006

FROM: "Sean September<" sseptember@parliament.gov.za >

TO: G Campher

SUBJECT: Re: witnesses

Hi Gabriel, thanks for this. I have already spoken to the PMU [Policy Management Unit] and they will get back to me today. If I get the info required, will send it to you a.s.a.p. I just got in the office now and I will give you a call later during the day.

Regards

Sean

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> Gabriel Campher>Responded>> 8/22/2006 10:02 AM >>>

Hi Sean

Thank you for the good spirit in which the pre-arb was held.

The issue for me is that I was not aware of the policy even though I agree that I should have known (10 years at Parly). Therefore the witnesses - to show that other staff were also not clued up with the policies.

Mr Dingani:

-to acknowledge that Parliament is only a premier institution on paper,

-policies and processes are not what they should be (i.e. "Vision Summit 2005")

-before his appointment there was no vision and mission

-policies were not seen as vehicles to turn the institution into 'a community of people', because policies were not part of the value system of the organisation and individuals

-even though he is the best person to confirm these issue I agreed not to call him as a witness, because the aim of the arbitration is not to embarrass anybody.

Mr Phaweni:

-before his appointment there was no track of policies, i.e. no link between policies and the vision-mission.

-staff was not aware of the parameters within which to perform their duties

-again, he is the best person to confirm the purpose of the December 2005 policy workshop (to familiarise staff with policies) and that at no stage was it stated that the policy that applied to me was in place

-however, the aim of the arbitration is not to embarrass people.

It seems that we reached agreement on the above in today's pre-arbitration meeting and that other people can confirm these issues. On that basis I would ask that Mr Phaweni does not have to appear at the arbitration on Monday, 28 August.

I would still appreciate the recording of the plenary session on 5 and 6 Dec 2005 at the workshop.*

Thanks again

Gabriel

[* The recording was not send to me, as promised.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> Gabriel Campher < 8/29/2006 9:30 AM >>>

Hi Sean

The arbitration was on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 and it is now up to the CCMA to arbitrate the matter. It was a good and clean 'fight' and I'm certain that the Commissioner will make a fair judgment. There are however some issues of the case that is still unclear to me. I would appreciate it if you could shed some light. After all, I acted in good faith when I withdrew the subpoenas for Merrs Dingani and Phaweni. I was also willing to share information during the pre-arbitration meeting, even though it is unprecedented that one should show your cards to the opponent before the showdown.

During the arbitration hearing, Parliament did not indicate:

1. when (specific date) the policy, that was applied to me, was approved and since when (specific date) it was operational.

2. how Parliament informed me of the policy.

3. that I was aware of the policy.

4. that I deliberately contravened the policy.

5. that the policy was in line with the Constitution (Act 108, 1996)

I would appreciate your willingness in sharing information after the showdown.

Thank you

Gabriel Campher

\----------------------------------------------------

From: Sean September" <sseptember@parliament.gov.za>

To: Gabriel Campher

Subject: Re: the aftermath

Date: 30 Aug 2006

Hi Broer, I trust you are well. Firstly the nature of the pre-arb is to share info (or show your cards) since there should be no surprises i.t.o. the documents etc. The purpose of this is to facilitate the hearing, so that the parties do not unnecessarily disagree on issues which are trite.

1. The policy was not new. We argued that the policy was always in operation, you argued your case around the new policy. The policy was always in operation and we indicated that it was there from the beginning of time. We indicated that the new policy was not relevant, and even if the Commissioner finds that it was, the policy is unchanged from the old one.

The questions you raise numbered 2-5 was presented as argument at the hearing, by both parties and we expect the Commissioner's award to be centered around those issues.

I hope this has clarified matters a bit for you.

Regards and good luck.

Sean

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - September 2006

PETITION:

Gabriel Campher's employment was terminated, because he contravened an unknown policy, when he stood as an independent candidate in the local government elections of 01 March 2006.

"If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the (Parliamentary) Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment."

Q: Were you aware of the said policy before it was applied to Gabriel Campher?

This petition was signed by 66 staff members, from various sections (departments) and from 2 to 20 years of employment.

* This petition was to be used as evidence at the CCMA hearing, but was not permitted as evidence by the commissioner.

\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 September 2006

Mr Z Dingani

The Secretary to Parliament

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Dingani

G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT

Our arbitration hearing was held on Monday, 28 August 2006 at the CCMA [1] offices. It is now in the hands of the CCMA commissioner to apply his mind so that this labour dispute can be laid to rest. If the outcome is in my favour, I would like to make three requests. I will deal with it later.

Moral Freedom

"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they. How did this transformation come about? I do not know. How can it be made legitimate? That question I believe I can answer." [2]

With these words Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), the French philosopher, started his endeavour to justify 'the governing of people'. He argued that the social and moral qualities, which were mere potentialities in a state of nature, can only be realised in a political society - human beings can be both ruled and free, if they rule themselves (or via representatives).

There is a strong link between freedom and morality, because freedom without duties and responsibilities (i.e. morality) is anarchy. "It is only by leaving the state of nature and becoming a social being in the fullest sense [i.e. a citizen [3]], that [human beings] can realise their own nature as [human beings]" [4] and achieve what I call moral freedom.

Linking Strategy and Tactics

I was fortunate and privileged to attend a management workshop as an acting supervisor (control committee secretary) in late 2004. You opened the workshop by stating that even though the environment of Parliament, as a workplace, is political, employees should be political. You said that it is impossible to be a-political, because we all have our political baggage. One should however be non-partisan in the workplace, i.e. not show ones political affiliation at work. I agree with this statement, because we cannot deny that we are social and political animals. As voters (i.e. as citizens) we exercise our basic political right every five years, when we elect our political leaders to Parliament – without an active political citizenry there will be no thriving political democracy. Being partisan (outside the workplace) is part-and-parcel of any successful democracy!

In August 2005 you circulated your opening speech at the "Vision Implementation Summit" (27-29 August 2005) to all employees. This summit was attended by managers – its purpose was: 'how do we [as managers] implement the vision and strategic objectives of Parliament'. [I believe the word 'ensure' should be added, because level one employees implement, while managers direct and manage the resources]. The central message of the guest speaker (Mr Pityana, a state department director-general) was that Parliament, as a premier institution, should be at the forefront of excellence within the public service. [I believe that it is currently only a premier institution [5] on paper, but that the desire of staff members to perform is latent – it merely has to be kindled so that it can burn like a raging fire.]

As the Secretary to Parliament and therefore our 'paramount leader' you also made some powerful remarks at the summit.

Leadership – "To lead and inspire requires a people-centered leadership" (my emphasis)

[I strongly believe that 'people-centered leadership' is not fully understood by all managers – it implies being compassionate and moral; put plainly being human - ubuntu]

Constitution – "We derive our mandate from the Constitution...we must establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights. To improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person." As you can see from this, our vision is inspired by the Constitution.

Systems and Processes – "We have to ensure that our policies and procedures enable us to meet the challenges of realising the vision. We have reassessed our policies and are in the process of revising and implementing these. As the guest speaker said, we do not want to build an institution based on policing people; instead we should devise systems that enhance our abilities to review our outputs and outcomes."

People – "At the heart of every institution is its people. I am tasking each manager to consider how he or she will harness the energy and commitment of every staff member towards the realisation of the vision. We need to install the values of integrity, dedication, loyalty and commitment. To do this we need to lead by example. This institution has place for all those who are prepared to contribute in the realisation of the vision. Our staff is supportive of the transformation process and the changes introduced, but what they need is better and timely communication and we as managers must ensure that happens".

Vision – "the purpose of this workshop has been to ensure common understanding of the vision and strategic objectives of Parliament. This exercise must be repeated with your staff..."

[Vision – to build an effective people's Parliament that is responsive to the needs of the people and that is driven by the ideal of realising a better quality of life for all the people in South Africa]

Mr Secretary, before your appointment, Parliament did not have any vision or roadmap to realise the vision, if there was one. You have made members of staff aware of the vision of Parliament, even though it is an 'imposed' vision, because staff members were excluded from the process.

My labour dispute with Parliament is indicative of the lack of people-centered leadership, democratic management style and effective communication. For example, policies (or rules, codes) that provide the parameters within which staff have to perform their duties are not effectively communicated, with the result that output (including staff morale and image of the institution) suffers. Policies are crucial to control, guide and enhance staff performance – it should not be an end in itself, but a means to a certain end, i.e. the realisation of the (known) vision.

The Labour Dispute

I worked for 9 years and 9 months at Parliament as a committee secretary. Parliament produced draft policies in September 2005 and workshopped its 1000+ employees on these policies from December 2005. The date of implementation of these policies was set for 03 January 2006. In December 2005, my section (Committees) went for its three day workshop on seventeen draft policies [6], one of which dealt with political activities, amongst other things, i.e. 'employee conduct'. This draft policy allowed for employee nomination to the National Assembly [7] and local government council [8].

I contested the local government elections on Wednesday, 01 March 2006 as an independent ward candidate. On Monday, 06 March 2006, I was informed by my manager (Ms Zanele Mene) that I 'voluntarily resigned' [9] from Parliament. Ms Mene then gave me a prepared letter in which Parliament accepted my 'resignation'. I [10] stated that I thought that there was no policy in place regulating employee involvement in political elections, apart from the 'non-partisanship in the workplace' policy. I added that the draft policy, which allowed 'part-time councillorship', would have been implemented on 03 January 2006. My pleas to the manager and you [11] fell on deaf ears.

I believe that this policy is irrational and unconstitutional, because Parliament expected me to be a good citizen and vote, but not to stand for public office! To stand for public office (local government) is a constitutional right [12] and can only be limited by national legislation [13].

The fact that Ms Mene gave me a prepared letter on 6 March 2006, indicates that a moral decision was made by Parliament's management, even before I appeared on the red carpet. The decision was unilateral and final, which is clearly not in sync with the values of a post-apartheid South Africa [14].

The CCMA will now arbitrate this matter, which in my opinion is absolutely unnecessary – I believed (still believe) that this matter can be mutually beneficially resolved [15]. The image of Parliament, the embodiment of the struggle for (moral) freedom in South Africa is on the line.

Subpoenas

As you are aware, I requested the CCMA to issue subpoenas [16] for four witnesses to provide evidence at the arbitration hearing. At the pre-arbitration hearing on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 with Parliament's legal representative and Labour Relations managers, they requested the withdrawal of the three issued subpoenas. They argued that these subpoenas were unprecedented, because managers normally testified for the employer and not for the employee.

My argument was that you, as the Secretary and Mr Phaweni, as the Policy Manager, could provide the strategic and tactical location of this policy, respectively. Your team suggested that 'other people' could provide the information, which was well-known, on behalf of the managers. The team later accepted the need for Mr Kali, as witness. I withdraw the subpoenas, not because I agreed that the information was well-known, but because the aim of the hearing was not to embarrass anybody (especially senior managers) by subjecting them to interrogations.

Integrity

On Tuesday, 18 August 2006, when I delivered the subpoenas to Mr Phaweni, Mr Kali and you, I spoke to Sis Ntombe [17] (Ms Ntombe Mbuqe). She asked whether I would like to come back to Parliament and my response was:

"Sis Ntombe, when I started at Parliament in 1996, my political and ethical values were the same as those of Parliament. However, with this labour dispute, our political values may still be the same, but not our ethical values."

On Saturday, 26 August 2006, Sis Ntombe sent me an SMS [18].

My Requests

One - I indicated to the CCMA commissioner that I wanted to be reinstated and that reinstatement should preferably be on 11 November 2006. In the end it will be the employer's, i.e. your decision. I am currently a substitute teacher and my contract expires on 10 November 2006. The working conditions of a (temporary) teacher are terrible to say the least – disrespectful and ill-disciplined learners, tons of administrative work, low salary and no pension, medical aid and housing subsidy. I do not want to return, but I must – I have moral duties towards to the principal and the learners.

Firstly, I promised the principal that I would complete my contract. He took the risk and employed me in my hour of need – now it is time to repay. Secondly, the learners will soon write their quarterly examinations in September. It would be unfair to them to deal with yet another new teacher, when they are suppose to finalise their work for the term and start preparations for the examinations.

Two – I wish to be redeployed to another section where my unique experience and ethics training can be used to the benefit of Parliament. For example, my deployment to the 'Policy Unit' can be used to enhance and increase the awareness of policies, which will empower staff members so that the mission of Parliament can be accomplished – I am after all, a living example of 'how not to apply a policy'.

The Public Service Commission has muted about the appointment of Ethics Officers in government departments, so as to deal with issues of service delivery, corruption and governance. If not the 'Policy Unit', then I could be deployed to start such an office or position in Parliament.

Three – Lastly, I humbly request the reinstatement or compensation of Mr Shamiel Abbas [19], who was also the victim of this unknown and unconstitutional policy of Parliament. He stood as a ward candidate for the Independent Democrats. The two of us went through the same traumatic experience after loosing our jobs, so unexpectedly. We believed that we did nothing wrong – for example, we did not look for trouble, but merely stood for public office to work for 'a better life to all'.

In conclusion, I wish to affirm that the success of Parliament is the success of South Africa – we must ensure that it achieve its goals and realise its vision. I want to play a role in assisting Parliament to rise from the ashes, like the mythical Phoenix and become a truly premier institution. Without an effective Parliament, the voices of the people will be silent – I want to serve the people, I want them to be heard.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

G CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration – established by section 112 of the Labour Relations Act (Act 66 of 1995).

2. Rousseau, J.J. 1968. The Social Contract. London : Penguin Books. (page 49)

3. The success of a 'democracy' is dependent on the participation of its citizens – minimally to vote for their representatives and maximally to stand for public office. This is encapsulated in section 19 of our Constitution (Act 108 of 1996).

4. Rousseau, J.J. 1968. The Social Contract. London : Penguin Books. (page 28)

5. It is a premier institution. Firstly, it is a gift to the people from those leaders in Parliament and government (and others) whose sacrifices and determination during the Liberation struggle pulled us through the dark days of Apartheid. Secondly, Parliament is the voice of the people – it is the epitome of freedom. Thirdly, like all state bodies it must "respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights in the Bill of Rights" [Constitution, section 7(3)].

6. These policies dealt with (a) international travel (b) employee conduct, (c) succession, (d) leave of absence, (e) performance management, (f) absenteeism, (g) missing staff, (h) Parliamentary records, (i) acceptance of gifts, (j) training and development of staff, (k) travel, accommodation and S&T, (l) etc.

7. Article 8.4 (e) "Employees of Parliament may not become a member of the National Assembly or any provincial legislature in terms of section 46 and 106 of the Constitution. This implies that should she/he be elected to one of these bodies, she/he will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which her/ his election is officially announced."

8. Article 8.4 (h) "Should an employee be elected to a municipal council, she/he should be required to inform designated persons of such election, the nature of their duties and responsibilities as a councillor..."

9. A policy, which was unknown to me, stated: 'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment'.

10. I was dumbfounded and shocked, to say the least. I was just told without warning that I have lost my job! As a breadwinner, I had to provide for a wife, three children, two dogs and pay a housing bond, etc. My manager did not use any small talk, but went straight for the jugular.

11. I wrote a letter to you on 7 March 2006 in which I stated my ignorance of the policy and the fact that I was an employee for nearly 10 years, in which I served the MPs on the Defence committee fairly, ethically and professionally. You responded on 03 May 2006, stating that you cannot reinstate me, because the policy aims to ensure non-partisanship in the workplace. Precisely my argument, I was non-partisan in the workplace!

12. Section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996. On 10 May 2006, I forwarded a copy of a letter to the Constitutional Court in which I queried the constitutionality of this policy. I did not receive any communication from you in this regard.

13. Section 158 (1)(b) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996

14. South Africa resolved its political problems through negotiations, but it is ironic that even though this 'miracle' is a highly sought after export commodity of the post-1994 South Africa, it is not sufficiently applied in the country, especially in Parliament, which is the symbol (epitome) of negotiations/discussion and democracy in this country.

15. That is why I withdrew the subpoenas for you and Mr Phaweni and that is why I was willingly to unilaterally provide information at the pre-arbitration hearing.

16. Subpoenas for Mr Dingani, Secretary to Parliament; Mr Phaweni, Policy Unit manager; Ms Mene, Committee Section manager (i.e. my manager) and Mr Kali, controller of unit one, i.e. my supervisor. The subpoena for Ms Mene was not granted.

17. Sis Ntombe was a fellow Committee Secretary, but more importantly she was the 'mother figure' in the section.

18. "Gabs, I know you must be anxious of what is going to happen on Monday [at the arbitration hearing]. Be positive, have faith, forget about moral and ethics for a minute. Think about getting back to your job. Our prayers and thoughts. Be strong and ask God to lead your way, He knows the plans He has for you. Good luck. Sis Ntombe". My response to this SMS was: ""Sis Ntombe, thanks 4 the support, however ETHICS – integrity, fairness, non-partisanship – will be the basis of my defence. If I loose on the basis of that, so be it. I'd rather be poor and ethical, than rich and unethical. Cheers. Gabs"

19. Friend? No, we merely greeted each other in the corridors of Parliament. Colleague? Maybe - not in the pure sense (shoulder to shoulder in the same unit), even though we had the same employer. Fellow human being? Yes! We have the same fundamental human rights, as per the Constitution.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

PARLEMENT VAN SUID-AFRIKA

11 September 2006

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Republic of South Africa

Tel. +27 21 403 2559

Dear Mr Campher

G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT

I acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter, dated 11 September 2006 with regard to the above.

The content has been noted.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

for ZA DINGANI

SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

[* ZA Dingani did not respond to my letter.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION (CCMA)

-ARBITRATION AWARD-

Commissioner: VUYISA MAZWI

Case No.: WE4 714-06

Date of Award: 10 SEPTEMBER 2006

ln the ARBITRATION between;

APPLICANT: G CAMPHER

RESPONDENT: PARLIAMENT (RSA)

DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION

The arbitration hearing took place under the auspices of the CCMA in Cape Town on 28 August 2006. The applicant was represented by Mr Michael Sithole, a shop steward of NEHAWU and the respondent was represented by Mr Jan Theron, an attorney from Jan Theron Attorneys.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

Whether the applicant was dismissed by the respondent and if so whether the dismissal was fair?

BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a committee secretary on 1 July 1996. He earned an annual salary of R118 000-00.

SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

Applicant's Version

Applicant testified that on the morning of 6 March 2006 his manager, Ms Zanele Mene ("Mene") called him to the office where Mr Kali, applicant's supervisor was also in attendance. Mene told the applicant that it had come to her attention that he had been nominated for election as a councillor. Applicant confirmed that indeed he had been nominated, but in the capacity as an independent candidate. Mene told him that in terms of the respondent's policy, if he was nominated or appointed as a councillor of a statutory body, he had resigned voluntarily. However, it was the first time that the applicant had been shown or made aware of the policy. He was only aware of the draft policy that was shown to employees in December 2005. The draft policy did not disentitle employees from standing. Mene told him that the relationship had been terminated.

Applicant went to his office to pack up his belongings. He was also asked to submit his access card. He was shocked, because he was unaware that he contravened any rule. He knew that resignation was given on a month's notice, but he did not give any notice, because he did not resign. Had he resigned, he would have served notice.

It was unfair for the manager to dismiss him without investigating the matter and asking the applicant to explain his side. On 7 March 2006 he addressed a letter to the respondent saying that he was unaware of the policy and that he was non-partisan in his job. In the same letter he sought the rescission of the decision of the section manager and requested re-instatement. He only received the response on 3 May 2006.

Before he stood for election he first checked the Electoral Act to see if he met the requirements. He also consulted the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 and felt he was entitled to stand for election and keep his job. The draft policy was consistent with the Constitution and he followed that policy. His constitutional right could only be limited in terms of the law of general application and not the employer's policies. At any rate he only found out about the policy at issue when it was given to him on 6 March 2006.

Ben Kali, the supervisor gave evidence on how policies were communicated to the employees. He stated that if policies were channeled through him, he would convey same to the applicant. However, applicant could also get to know of policies through e-mails.

On 6 March 2006 he was called to the manager's office and told that applicant stood for elections as a councillor and that he was deemed to have resigned. The witness learnt that the manager was referring to a policy that was already in place, but he did not even know of it. The last policy that they were informed of was conveyed through the intranet. It was then followed by the draft policy. Applicant also told him that he was unaware of the policy. The manager gave the applicant a letter terminating his services.

Respondent's version

Sean September, the labour relations manager testified that the policy in question had been in operation for a long time and even before 1994. The policy applies until it was superseded by another. Applicant seemed to have accepted nomination in January 2006 and at that stage the witness was unaware the applicant stood for election. He only became aware in the morning of 6 March 2006 after some employees had brought that information to his attention. Applicant was required to inform the Secretary to Parliament of his course of action. The witness informed Mene of the applicant's situation.

Compliance with the policy is important, because applicant served a committee of members of parliament (MPs) from different political parties. The draft policy on which applicant sought to rely was irrelevant to the case in issue.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

The applicant bears the onus to establish the existence of dismissal in terms of section 192(1) of the Labour Relations Act (Act 66 of 1995), as amended (" the Act"). The onus has to be discharged on a preponderance of probabilities. It is contended by respondent that applicant resigned and he denies it. It is common cause that the applicant did not, on his own prepare and submit a letter of resignation to the respondent. Instead, respondent relies on the provisions of its policy. The relevant parts of the policy on "Voluntary resignation" reads as follows:

'1(1) A staff member may, subject to the provisions of this Chapter terminate her or his service voluntarily by submitting her or his resignation in writing to the Secretary.'

Withdrawal of resignation

3 The appointing authority may allow a staff member to withdraw her or his resignation before it comes into effect, if he deems it in the interest of the Service.

Voluntary resignation on account of candidature for statutory body

4 (1) If a staff member accept nomination as candidate for an election or appointment as member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resign voluntarily from the Service with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.

In determining whether the applicant did resign it is important to first appreciate the import of the concept. In their book; The South African Law of Unfair Dismissals, 1994 at page 86, PAK le Roux and Andre van Niekerk, comments as follows;

"Resignation has been seen as unilateral act by an employee, which does not require acceptance by the employer and cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the employee."

Section 37(4)(a) of the Basic conditions of Employment Act, 75 of 1997 (the 'BCEA') requires resignation to be in writing unless given by an illiterate employee. The above extract from the employer's code does not dispense with this form either.

What seems clear though is that resignation is a unilateral act of an employee performed at his or her own behest. That is more so if it is to be viewed as a voluntary act. Clause 4(1) of the employer's policy clearly falls short of providing for resignation partly because it does not reflect the employee's will but rather that of the employer. The language used by the policy drives this point home by holding that the employee is "regarded as having resigned", if he/she accepts nomination. The employer's final say on this 'voluntary resignation' fostered by clause 3 of the policy which once more gives the employer the power to rescind the resignation. It is not surprising that the employer refers to 'voluntary resignation' in its policy, because an involuntary resignation ushers in a possible claim of a constructive dismissal [Jooste v Transnet Ltd t/a SAA Airways (1995) 16 ILJ 629 (LAC) at 638A-E].

I appreciate that the objective of the policy is to proscribe the conflict of interest which is itself an act of misconduct. Therefore, to hold that a breach of policy amounts to resignation takes the matter to far and is at any rate an attempt to avoid procedural formalities attendant to dismissing an employee by treating the termination of the contract as the employee's act when it is not. In my view resignation is the ultimate decision of the employee and not the employer.

Even an extreme case of a repudiation of a contract of employment by an employee still gives rise to dismissal when the employer accepts such repudiation [South African Broadcasting Corporation v CCMA & Others (2001) 4 BLLR 449 (LC) at paragraph 16]. It seems to me that the situation would be even more untenable for the employer where the breach to a policy that is unilaterally imposed.

I am accordingly of the view that the employee did not resign, let alone resigning voluntarily.

If I am wrong in this finding, I still believe that by refusing to grant the rescission of the resignation the employer dismissed the employee. It was not in dispute that after being advised to do so after 6 March 2006 applicant requested that the alleged resignation be rescinded. In terms of the letter of 3 May 2006, the Secretary replied as follows;

"RE: RESIGNATION-CANDIDATURE FOR STATUTORY BODY

Your letter dated 7 March 2006 refers;

The main reason for the policy governing your resignation is to ensure that staff at parliament remains non-partisan in the performance of their functions and provision of services to Members of Parliament.

ln view of the above, I am unable to accede to your request. I wish you everything of the best in your future endeavours."

The effect of this letter from the Secretary, viewed in the context of the policy was that the employer was not prepared to backtrack 'regarding' applicant's having resigned regardless of his open protest that he had not resigned. I shall deal later with the issue of whether or not the applicant was aware of the policy, suffice to hold at this stage that I am not convinced that he ought to have been aware that by accepting nomination or candidature of a statutory body he would have been regarded as having resigned.

I am accordingly satisfied that applicant was dismissed.

The applicant denied any knowledge of the written policy referred to above. Even his supervisor claimed he was also unaware of this written policy. The written policy in question seems to have been adopted in June 2006 and its effective date is 1 July 2006. However, I believe that applicant ought to have been reasonably aware given his position work (that of serving MPs from various political spectrum) he could not be partisan. He conceded this in cross examinations as well. He further conceded that he was aware that the draft policy he sought to rely on was not adopted.

However, applicant insisted that he was not guilty of the conflict of interest, because he accepted nomination as an independent candidate. I do not believe that much turns on this contention by the applicant. Independent candidature cannot be seen as a non-expression of a political position. lt is in effect an overt expression of rejections of all prevailing political associations and their principles in favour of an independent opinion. An independent stands and canvasses in direct opposition to existing political entities. It is therefore highly unlikely in those circumstances that an independent candidate will not make statements or exhibit conduct or otherwise conduct himself in any manner that is calculated to discredit his opponents in the elections.

In this I believe that the applicant was indeed guilty of the offence of conflict of interest.

Applicant also seek refuge to the constitutional protection, to wit section 19(3)(b) which entitle every citizen to stand for public office and if elected to hold office. He felt that the proscription contained in the employer's policy limited his constitutional right in this respect. However, this is not just a typical case of constitutional right that is available to the applicant only. Where the employer seeks to procure the dismissal of an employee, who is guilty of a conflict of interest as in the present case there are competing constitutional rights involved. After all, the right to fair labour practices in terms of section 23(1) of the Constitution also extends to employers [National Education Health & Allied Workers Union v University of Cape Town & Others (2003) 24 ILJ 95 (CC) at 112F-G to 113A.

The constitutional right to fair labour practices finds statutory exposition through interalia the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the Act"). In terms of section 185 of the Act the employer has a right to fairly dismiss the employee for interalia misconduct. The obligation imposed on employees not to act in a manner that is in conflict with the employer's interest is an established common law obligation. It finds application today as it did in the past. The objective of the proscription in this case is reasonable given the environment which applicant worked. In my view this constitutional claim by applicant is farfetched and without any merit.

The dismissal of the applicant was substantive fair.

However the respondent failed to comply with pre-dismissal procedures in terms of Schedule 8 of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal ('the Code"). Item 4(1) of the Code requires the employer to conduct an investigation to determine if there are grounds for dismissal. This does not need to be a formal inquiry. The employer should notify the employee of the allegations using a form and language that the employee can reasonably understand. The employee should be allowed the opportunity to state a case in response to the allegations. The employee should be entitled to a reasonable time to prepare the response and to the assistance of a trade union representative or fellow employee. After the enquiry the employer should communicate the decision taken and preferably furnish the employee with written notification of the decision.

I believe that this is a case where applicant's right to procedural fairness was grossly violated and an award of two months' salary would be competent in this circumstance. His monthly salary, calculated from his annual salary rate of pay referred to above is R9833-00.

AWARD

The respondent is ordered to pay applicant compensation of R19666-00 by no later than 30 September 2006.

(signed)

CCMA Commissioner: VUYISA MAZWI

\-----------------------------------------------------------

16 September 2006

Mr R Bodart

Legal Aid Board

Cape Town Justice Centre

PO Box 516 / Docex 19

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Bodart

APPLICATION FOR LEGAL-AID

I submitted an application for legal-aid at your Cape Town office, in person to Mr Mark lé Kay, on 07 June 2006.

Mr Lé Kay informed me that the turnaround time was normally two weeks. During July I contacted Mr Lé Kay several times to assess progress – last word was that the person dealing with it was on leave until mid-August 2006.

In early September 2006, I received a letter from you, dated 29 June 2006 (mailed on 30 August 2006). It stated:

"Previous correspondence herein with specific reference to our letter to you dated 09 June 2006 [a letter I never received]. Please furnish us with your further instructions on or before 16 September 2006 [i.e. a Saturday] failing which we are proceeding to close your file."

I phoned you in the week of 04 September and we agreed to meet on Monday, 11 September at 15:00 at your offices. When I arrived for the appointment, I was informed that you are on sick-leave. Your shared-secretary informed me to phone you on Wednesday. I also gave my details to the receptionist, who promised to inform you of my visit. On Friday, I phoned, but you were in consultation. I gave my phone number to the receptionist for you to return my call – you never did.

I would still like the board to assist me with legal aid. Attached, please find background documents on my matter:

1. Letter to the Constitutional Court

2. Response of the Constitutional Court

2. CCMA judgement on the labour dispute (G Campher vs Parliament-RSA)

3. Letter to Director of the CCMA

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

18 September 2006

The Unit Manager: Labour Relations

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sean

G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT (RSA)

Congratulations on your victory. I am however disappointed that the CCMA Commissioner did not properly apply his mind sufficiently.

Conflict of Interest

The Commissioner found 'conflict of interest' and therefore misconduct on my part. As such my dismissal was 'substantively fair'. It is however illogical how candidacy can be a 'conflict of interest', when voting in elections or membership of a political party [1], as a Parliamentary employee, is not. The principle is that the employee makes his/her political choices outside the workplace, where it must remain. If not, then he/she is partisan, which must be deemed as misconduct. Appointment as a Member of Parliament or full-time councillor is definitely 'conflict of interest', because one cannot be 'baas [* boss] and Klaas' [* worker]. Appointment as a part-time local councillor, where council work is done outside Parliamentary working hours, is debatable.

Misconduct

The 'Guidelines in cases of dismissal for misconduct' [2], article 7(b) states;

(b) if a rule or standard was contravened, [it must be determined] whether or not –

(i) the rule was valid or reasonable,

(ii) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the rule,

(iii) the rule has been consistently applied by the employer,

(iv) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule.

The Commissioner, in my opinion, did not deal with the above article. We argued that:

(i) the rule/policy was unconstitutional, in terms of section 19(3)(b).

(ii) I was not aware of the policy (even my supervisor and other colleagues [3] were unaware).

(iii) The rule was not consistently applied – an employee to whom it was applied after the 2004

general elections, is still employed by Parliament [4].

(iv) Dismissal is not the appropriate sanction [5], taking into account my service record [6] and

my ignorance of the policy.

Information Sharing

In our last electronic communication, you indicated that the Commissioner would deal with the questions that I addressed to you – he did not. These questions dealt with the issues that Parliament did not address/prove during the arbitration hearing:

1. when (specific date) the policy, that was applied to me, was approved and since when

(specific date) it was operational.

2. how Parliament informed me of the policy.

3. that I was aware of the policy.

4. that I deliberately contravened the policy.

5. that the policy was in line with the Constitution (Act 108, 1996)

Parliament's Vision [7]

Even though Parliament won this case [8], I am of the opinion that the attainment of Parliament's vision received a setback. The resources (legal fees, time, etc.) spent on this case could have been used to improve labour relations and the image of the institution. Staff morale is at an all-time low; the labour relations unit is dogged down by labour disputes, instead of strengthening labour relations and the tainted image of the institution remains a detractor.

I believe that Parliament is a premier institution [9], but it has to improve its labour relations – if not, then it will remain a premier institution on paper. The staff members are ready to commit themselves to this challenge, once the leadership becomes organic and people-centred [10].

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. These political rights are enshrined in the Constitution (Act 108, 1996) – section 19. A staff member of Parliament is firstly a citizen and then an employee.

2. 'Code of good practice - Dismissal' in Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995.

3. Sixty-six colleagues signed a document confirming your ignorance of the policy.

4. I gave you the name and section of this employee, during the pre-arbitration hearing. However during the arbitration hearing your team objected that I raised this issue, seeing that she was not a witness that could be cross-examined.

5. "When deciding whether or not to impose the penalty of dismissal, the employer should in addition to the gravity of the misconduct consider factors such as the employee's circumstances (including length of service, previous disciplinary records and personal circumstances), the nature of the job and the circumstances of the infringement itself" - Article 3(3) – 'Disciplinary measure short of dismissal' in 'Code of Good Practice- Dismissal, Schedule 8 of Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1996. Even you indicated to me that this case was different from a case where an employee deliberately stole a computer.

6. Almost ten years of dedicated service with an exemplary disciplinary record.

7. To build an effective people's Parliament that is responsive to the needs of the people and that is driven by the ideal of realising a better quality of life for all the people in South Africa.

8. Parliament has to pay the applicant two months salary (for almost ten years of dedicated service). The dispute could have had a 'win-win' outcome – My approach was consistently conciliatory, but Parliament was of the opinion that 'might is right'. Even though honesty was not the wining policy, in this instance, I, as an ethical person, still believe that it is the 'best policy'.

9. It is a premier institution. Firstly, it is a gift to the people from those leaders in Parliament and government (and others) whose sacrifices and determination during the Liberation struggle pulled us through the dark days of Apartheid. Secondly, Parliament is the voice of the people – it is the epitome of freedom. Thirdly, like all state bodies it must "respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights in the Bill of Rights" [Constitution, section 7(3)].

10. I indicated 'reinstatement' to the Commissioner as an award, because I want to participate in the achievement of Parliament's vision - I took your advice and applied for a post in the National Assembly.

\--------------------------------------------------------------------

18 September 2006

The Director

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Private Bag X9167

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sir / Madam

G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT (RSA) – WE 4714-06

The award in this labour dispute was made on 10 September 2006. I need your guidance to pursue this matter, because, in my opinion [1], the Commissioner did not apply his mind sufficiently.

Background

I stood in the local government elections of 01 March 2006, as an independent ward councillor. On 06 March 2006, I was informed by my manager at Parliament (RSA) that I have 'resigned voluntarily', because I contravened the policy below:

'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a

statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with

effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment'.

Conflict of Interest

The Commissioner found 'conflict of interest' and therefore misconduct on my part. As such my dismissal was 'substantively fair'. It is however illogical how candidacy can be a 'conflict of interest', when voting in elections or membership of a political party [2], as a Parliamentary employee, is not. The principle is that the employee makes his/her political choices outside the workplace, where it must remain. If not, then he/she is partisan, which must be deemed as misconduct. Appointment as a Member of Parliament or full-time councillor is definitely 'conflict of interest', because one cannot be 'baas and Klaas'. Appointment as a part-time local councillor, where council work is done outside Parliamentary working hours, is debatable.

The Commissioner found 'conflict of interest', but did not state when and how the alleged 'conflict of interest' manifested itself in the workplace [3]. I stood in the elections as a citizen and not as an employee of Parliament [4] – I was partisan outside the workplace [5]. I agree with the Commissioner that the employer has the same rights to fair labour practices, but he forgets that the Constitution and not the Labour Relations Act is the "supreme law of the Republic" [6].

Misconduct

The 'Guidelines in cases of dismissal for misconduct' [7], article 7(b) states;

(b) if a rule or standard was contravened, [it must be determined] whether or not –

(i) the rule was valid or reasonable

(ii) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware,

of the rule,

(iii) the rule has been consistently applied by the employer,

(iv) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule.

The Commissioner, in my opinion, did not deal with the above article. We argued that:

(i) the rule/policy was unconstitutional, in terms of section 19(3)(b).

(ii) I was not aware of the policy (my supervisor testified that he was also unaware of the

policy [8]).

(iii) The rule was not consistently applied – an employee to who it was applied after the

2004 general elections, is still employed by Parliament [9].

(iv) Dismissal is not the appropriate sanction [10], taking into account my service record

[11] and my ignorance of the policy.

Constructive Dismissal

The Commissioner found that I did not resign, as per the policy. He found "the employer's policy clearly falls short of providing for resignation partly, because it does not reflect the employee's will, but rather that of the employer. He continued; 'it is not surprising that the employer refers to 'voluntary resignation'...because an involuntary resignation ushers in a possible claim of a constructive dismissal." He concluded; "I am accordingly of the view that the applicant did not resign, let alone resigning voluntarily" (my emphasis)'. The Commissioner does not bring his argument to a logical conclusion, because he stops short of pronouncing 'constructive dismissal, even though he found involuntary resignation.

The policy stated 'voluntary resignation', but nothing was voluntary about the resignation – in fact the action of Parliament indicated involuntary (forced) resignation and therefore constructive dismissal.

Award

The Commissioner awarded two months' salary [12] for almost ten years of dedicated service and an exemplary disciplinary record. The Commissioner found that I was dismissed for misconduct (taking things as they are), but was dismissal appropriate sanction, taking into account the length of my service and exemplary disciplinary record? In my opinion the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.

Future Landscape

The Commissioner did not pronounce himself on ways to avoid policy-related labour disputes in the future. I believe he should have ordered Parliament to redraft the policy, so that it is in line with the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act [13] – in its present form, it is unreasonable to say the least.

I would also appreciate your guidance on this matter, as well as a copy of the audio recording of the arbitration hearing.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. I do not have a legal degree, but I consider myself a logical and rational person.

2. These political rights are enshrined in the Constitution (Act 108, 1996) – section 19. A staff member of Parliament is firstly a citizen and then an employee. See section 158(1)(b) for limitation of this right.

3. At the hearing, I wanted to submit supporting letters from two senior Members of Parliament on my committee, stating that I was never partisan in the workplace. These letters were not accepted after objection from Parliament's team and Commissioner's ruling that the letters were irrelevant.

4. I stated categorically that during the electioneering phase, I did not influence voters by wearing Parliament's T-shirt (for example) or telling them that I was employed by Parliament.

5. Another employee, whose husband stood for the ANC in my ward, was also every active during the electioneering phase. Was she also guilty of a 'conflict of interest' (outside the workplace)?

6. Section 2 of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996).

7. 'Code of good practice - Dismissal' in Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995.

8. The Commissioner found: "[The supervisor] stated that if policies were channeled through him he would convey same to the applicant. However, applicant could also get to know of policies though e-mails". It seems to me that the Commissioner concluded that I knew of the policy through e-mails. It seems illogical that the employer e-mailed me and not the supervisor!! On page 6 of the judgement the Commissioner found that I was aware of the policy, because "I [i.e. the Commissioner] do believe that applicant ought to have been reasonably aware that given his position at work, he could not be partisan" – this is clearly an invalid argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises!!! Throughout the hearing I stated categorically that I was partisan outside the workplace, but not inside the workplace. Even the letter (3 May 2006) of the Secretary to Parliament stated that the aim of the policy was to ensure non-partisanship in the workplace – My conduct was thus in line with this policy. Also on page 6, the Commissioner found; "I [i.e. the Commissioner] am not convinced that he [applicant] ought to have been aware that by accepting nomination or candidature of a statutory body he would have been regarded as having resigned" – this he used to support his finding that I was dismissed, but does this not also mean that he believed that I was unaware of the policy?

9. I raised this issue orally, but it was objected to by Parliament's team. The request to subpoena this witness was not entertained by the Commissioner.

10. "When deciding whether or not to impose the penalty of dismissal, the employer should in addition to the gravity of the misconduct consider factors such as the employee's circumstances (including length of service, previous disciplinary records and personal circumstances), the nature of the job and the circumstances of the infringement itself" - Article 3(3), 'Disciplinary measure short of dismissal' in 'Code of Good Practice- Dismissal, Schedule 8 of Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1996.

11. Almost ten years of dedicated service with an exemplary disciplinary record.

12. How did the Commissioner arrive at two months salary? I wish to explain it to my wife and three children.

13. At least in terms of the LRA then, seeing that my constitutional claim, in the Commissioner's view, is "far fetched and without merit".

\-----------------------------------------------------------

18 September 2006

Mr A Mohamed

South African Human Rights Commission

PO Box 3563

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Mohamed

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

I met with you informally in your office in July 2006, with regard to, in my opinion, an unconstitutional workplace policy. I now wish to formally request the assistance of the Commission to test the validity and constitutionality of this policy in the courts.

I stood in the local government elections of 01 March 2006, as an independent ward councillor. On 06 March 2006, I was informed by my manager at Parliament (RSA) that I have 'resigned voluntarily', because I contravened the policy below:

'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment'.

In my opinion, the said policy is unconstitutional [1]. I accept that this right can be limited, because rights are not absolute. I disagree, however with you that this right is limited by section 36, as I am of the view that it can only be limited by national legislation [2].

You have indicated that the Commission do not investigate matters per se, but refer the matter to the offending state agency. This matter was dealt with by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as a labour dispute [3].

I now wish to pursue the constitutionality of this policy and would appreciate the assistance of the Commission in this regard.

Thanking you in advance

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Mr Mohamed did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. In terms of section 19 (3)(b) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996, every citizen (including employees) has the constitutional (fundamental human) right to stand for public office.

2. Section 158 (1)(b) of the Constitution states; "Every citizen who is qualified to vote for a Municipal Council is eligible to be a member of that Council, except – Anyone who is appointed by or in service of the state in another sphere and who has been disqualified from membership of a Municipal Council in terms of national legislation;

3. The arbitration was on 28 August 2006 – the outcome, as well as a letter to the Director, are enclosed.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

19 September 2006

Ms Raenette Taljaard *

The Director

Helen Suzman Foundation

Johannesburg

2000

Dear Raenette

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

Congratulations, even though belated, on your appointment as director of the Helen Suzman Foundation. It is quite clear from the Rapport article of 10 Sept 2006 that you are enjoying yourself. I need your guidance and assistance please.

I stood in the local government elections of 01 March 2006, as an independent ward councillor. On 06 March 2006, I was informed by my manager that I have 'resigned voluntarily', because I contravened a policy [1]. In my opinion, the said policy is unconstitutional [2]. I accept that this right can be limited, because rights are not absolute [3]. This matter was dealt with by the CCMA, but I now wish to pursue the matter through the courts to test the constitutionality of the policy.

Attached please the following:

1. Letter from my manager

2. My letter to the Secretary to Parliament

3. Response of the Secretary

4. Circular of Minister of Public Service & Administration [4]

5. Letter to the Constitutional Court

6. Response of the Constructional Court

7. CCMA arbitration award

8. My letter to the Director of the CCMA

9. Letters of support (Members of Parliament: Merrs Asmal, Shah and Ndlovu)

I would appreciate your assistance in directing me in the right direction, if your f oundation does not deal with these cases, per se.

Thanking you in advance

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Raenette Taljaard was previously a Member of Parliament for the Democratic Party and I worked at times with her. She did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.

2. See section 19 (3)(b) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996

3. See sections 36 and 158 (1)(b) of the Constitution.

4. Even though the Parliamentary Service is independent of the Public Service, all of the information is relevant.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - October 2006

E-mail:

Mpumelelo Warren Tabata <mtabata@parliament.gov.za> wrote:

Dear Mr Campher

Further to our telephonic conversation of yesterday, I wish to confirm that your cheque for payment is ready for collection. Kindly liaise with Ms Fortune of Finance section at telephone (021) 403 3402 for collection of the cheque.

We hope you find this in order.

Kind regards

Mpumelelo Tabata

Parliament of South Africa

Human Resources: Labour Relations

Tel: +2721 403 3948

Fax: +2721 403 2010

[* This cheque was in terms of the CCMA award, i.e. two months salary]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail

Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006

From: G Campher

To: Mpumelelo Tabata

Subject: Re: CCMA ARBITRATION

Hi Mr Tabata

Thank you very much for the prompt service.

Cheers

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL AID BOARD

Justice for All

Cape Town Justice Centre

85 St George's Mall

Cape Town

8000

Our Ref: R Bodart/rb

06 October 2006

Mr G Campher

Belhar 7493

Dear Sir

RE: YOUR APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID

Your letter dated 16 September 2006 refers.

We note from our records that your file was closed due to a lack of instructions.

Please call at our Cape Town offices in order to formally re-apply for legal aid and to arrange a date for consultation with the writer hereof.

Yours sincerely

CAPE TOWN JUSTICE CENTRE

Per: (signed)

RENAAT BODART

\-----------------------------------------------------------

16 October 2006

Mr Kobus Esterhuizen

The Head: Complaints Unit

Legal Aid Board

PO Box 516 / Docex 19

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Esterhuizen

COMPLAINT

I received a letter, dated 6 October 2006, from Mr Bodart informing me that my file has been closed, due to a lack of instructions.

This letter came as a surprise to me, because I have been in contact with your offices, since I have registered the case on 7 June 2006 (yes, 7 June 2006!). Attached, please find my letter, dated 16 September 2006 to Mr Bodart.

The letter of Mr Bodart (6 October 2006) is a slap in my face. It does not address the issues raised in my letter of 16 September 2006. He does not;

1. apologise for the poor service that I have received since 7 June 2006,

2. explain why a letter, dated 29 June 2006, was mailed on 30 August 2006,

3. apologise for failing to meet with me on Monday, 11 September 2006, and

4. apologise for not returning my phone call of Friday, 15 September 2006.

Mr Bodart's last letter basically ignores my pleas for assistance and says that I should "take a number and get back in the queue", as if I was silent since 7 June 2006. I believe that Mr Bodart is well versed with my case and could have indicated whether or not I qualify for legal aid.

I understand that my case is not a priority and that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but to wait since 7 June 2006 for assistance?

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

18 October 2006

Prof K Asmal

Member of Parliament

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Prof

LETTER TO SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

I wish to express my appreciation, though belated, for the letter that you wrote to the Secretary to Parliament, on my behalf.

The above letter was written on 20 March 2006. Did the Secretary respond and if so, is it possible to have a copy thereof?

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Prof Asmal did not respond to this letter.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail

18 October 2006

Dear Justine

[* Ms Justine Del Monte was a labour lawyer and my private legal representative. She only advised me in her chambers and not at the CCMA, because I ran out of money.]

Enclosed please find:

1. Letter to Secretary to Parliament (no response yet)

2. First letter to Manager (Labour Relations)

3. Response of Manager (Labour Relations)

4. Second letter to Manager (Labour Relations)

5. Response of Manager (Labour Relations)

6. Letters of support from MPs [this was not allowed by Commissioner]

7. Signatures (or petition) of staff members [this was not allowed by Commissioner]

Further instruction:

1. Please pursue the CCMA award through the Labour Court.

2. Pursue the issue of my outstanding pension pay-out (relevant letter to Parliament is enclosed – point 4 & 5 above)
Audio recording

I believe that a transcription of the arbitration's audio recording would clarify how certain things that I raised verbally, were captured.

Oversights on Commissioner's part

My understanding was that the arbitration would not be as formal and rigid as proceedings in a court of law. As such my mistake not to subpoena certain witnesses, even though I raised this verbally, but Parliament's legal team objected. I did not explicitly call for the subpoena of this witness, but believe the Commissioner could have been more lenient.

It was also shown (my supervisor testified) that I did not know of the policy. I also wanted to submit signatures of other staff members, who also did not know of the policy. This was ruled as irrelevant by the Commissioner. Although I worked at Parliament for nearly 10 years, it could be said that I should have known, but the supervisor' testimony (plus the signatures) indicated that Parliament does not inform its staff members. This is also not a 'common policy', like the working hours with which you deal everyday.

Even though I am a non-smoker, I know that one should not smoke in government buildings - not because Parliament informed me, but because it was carried in the media. The smoking policy is a "common (or 'everyday') policy" and therefore it would be reasonable to expect that employees should know about it, even if the employer does not explicitly inform them about it.

The policy

The policy stated that I resigned, but the Commissioner ruled that I was dismissed, despite the wording of the policy. This was based on unfair procedure. He however found 'conflict of interest', (based on the wording of the policy), because I stood as a candidate, while employed in a political environment.

1. What is the 'conflict of interest', whilst I am a candidate?

2. Is dismissal an appropriate sanction, taking into account my service and disciplinary record?

The argument

I believe that your angle (conflict of interest) should be combined with section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution. Whilst being a candidate, I was exercising my political rights. Parliament, of all employers, should understand and support the exercise of this right, because its whole existence is based on this right! The policy in its current form is unconstitutional and should be referred to the Constitutional Court.

All of the MPs on my committee did not know that I had political ambitions, because I never discuss politics with them at work or outside work (see letters of support). They only heard of this when I did not pitch for work (i.e. I was fired). Staff members should be political, but non-partisan (at work), which I was – this was argued by the Secretary to Parliament (see his letter above).

As you can see this issue is not about me alone, but impacts on other people at Parliament and the Public Service in general. It cannot be left as is.

Thanks for now.

Gabriel Campher

\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail

From: Justine Del Monte <Justine@irishashman.co.za>

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: 18 October 2006

Subject: RE: YOURSELF / PARLIAMENT

Dear Gabriel

I have now had an opportunity to thoroughly consider the arbitration award and I am of the opinion that you do not have prospects of success in reviewing the arbitration ward in the Labour Court. I have also discussed the award with two of my partners, who also specialize in labour law, with the hope that they might pick up on something that I had missed, but they concur with my opinion that you do not have prospects of success.

As discussed with you on the phone yesterday you would have to show that the Commissioner's finding that your dismissal was substantively unfair is not reasonably justifiable based on the evidence properly before him at the time of the arbitration. On an initial reading of the award and having briefly discussed the arbitration with you, it appeared as though there may have been three possible grounds upon which you could have reviewed the award. These grounds being;

(1) the failure of the commissioner to take into consideration evidence given by you that the sanction of dismissal had not been applied consistently,

(2) the failure of the commissioner to take into consideration the evidence led that you were not elected, and

(3) the failure of the commissioner to consider whether or not you were nominated for election as, in terms of the clause 4(1) of the Policy Directives is only upon nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body that your employment is deemed to have terminated.

Regarding the third possible ground for review, it was my initial understanding that you stood for election as an independent candidate without nomination. The commissioner however notes in his award that you were nominated for election and therefore assume that you either led evidence at the arbitration that you were nominated for election or that you did not challenge evidence that you were nominated and that this evidence was then accepted as being true and correct. In this case, which I suspect to be true, then there are no prospects of success in relation to this ground of review. If this is not the case kindly urgently advise me as to the true state of affairs, so that we can re-look at this possible ground.

Regarding the second possible ground for review, it clear from a reading of clause 4(1) of the Policy Directives that Parliament regards a conflict to arise upon mere nomination for election and that it is not necessary for the candidate to be elected for the conflict to exist. The commissioner deals with this aspect in his award and makes a well reasoned argument that even as an independent candidate you subscribe to certain opinions and beliefs, even those are the rejection of existing political associations in favour of an independent opinion. He comes to a well reasoned conclusion and I am of the opinion that this basis for review will not be successful.

As discussed with you, the grounds for review are extremely limited. You would have to show that his conclusion is not reasonably justified based on the evidence properly before him. His finding may not be correct in your eyes, however the finding is in my opinion (and my partners') well reasoned and therefore reasonably justifiable based on the evidence before him. It is for this reason that I am of the opinion that you will be unsuccessful in reviewing the award on this basis.

I also suspect that should you attempt to review the award on this basis a judge will probably find that it was not necessary for Parliament to prove that you had made any political statements or expressed any opinions, but that the possibility that you may do so sufficiently to justify the conflict situation and your dismissal.

Regarding the first possible ground for review, it would have been your strongest ground for review, had the union not abandoned the point that the sanction of dismissal was not consistently applied. The union should have persisted with the claim and called the relevant witness, even if this meant that they would have had to move for a postponement of the matter. By conceding to the commissioner's finding that the evidence would not be considered, because it was hearsay evidence (which is correct) and not calling the witness, you effectively abandoned this claim and can therefore not raise it in the review process. In any event, there is no proper evidence on record regarding the inconsistency of sanction on which you could rely during the review application.

In light of the above, it is my opinion that you do not have prospects of being successful with the review application and that should you elect to proceed with the review, it is highly unlikely that the Labour Court will make an adverse costs order against you. Whilst I understand that you would like to proceed with the review on principle, it is also my opinion that you will not achieve what you seek to prove in proceeding with the review.

It is my understanding that you want to demonstrate that you were not biased, however as I have already set out above it is my opinion that a judge will probably find it was not necessary for Parliament to prove that you had made any political statements or expressed any opinions, but that the possibility that you may do so is sufficient to justify the conflict situation and dismissal. It is therefore unlikely that you will achieve your real goal in reviewing the award.

In summary, I strongly advise that you do not proceed with the review application for the reasons set out above. I suggest that if anything in my email is unclear you call me to discuss any aspects that you require further clarification on before making a decision. I confirm that I will not draft any papers until I have heard from you. Please note that you have until 15h00 on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 to file review papers should you wish to proceed with this matter.

I wait to hear from you.

Kind regards,

Justine Del Monte

IRISH ASHMAN ATTORNEYS

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail

Justine Del Monte

Irish & Ashman Attorneys

Cape Town

8000

19 October 2006

Dear Justine

G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT (RSA) – WE 4714-06

Thanks for the legal opinion. I agree with the argument, but not with the way forward.

I am afraid that as a labour lawyer, you are only looking at the labour aspects of the case:

1. Parliament's policy is above board, and

2. the Labour Relations Act (LRA) is supreme in labour matters.

Issue One

It is my view that the policy is not above board – it was shown by the arbitration award that the policy was specifically formulated so that it avoids certain labour procedure. It was also shown that the main aim of the policy is to ensure that staff members remain non-partisan in the execution of their duties to MPs [1].

Does this extend outside working hours? It seems to me that it does to Parliament and the Commissioner. I do not believe that this is constitutional [2]. There are also many instances where employers made policies [3] that only applies in the workplace, but which are not in line with the Constitution. These have been successfully contested.

Article 4(2)(b) of Parliament's Policy Directives allows for the nomination or appointment of staff members to statutory bodies, with the approval of the Secretary to Parliament, which indicates that the policy is not cast in stone.

Issue Two

The LRA is not supreme in labour matters but the Constitution [4].

What is the aim of the policy?

1. to prevent 'conflict of interest', during elections?

2. to ensure non-partisanship in the workplace, during elections?

-i.e. to prevent employees making political statements against any parliamentary political party, whilst he is at work?

3. to ensure non-partisanship in the workplace and outside the workplace, during elections? - i.e. to prevent employees making political statements against any parliamentary political party, whilst at work or at home?

Answers

1. If the answer is number 1, then;

-can the employee make political statements against political parties outside election periods?

2. If the answer is two, then;

-can the employee make political statements against parties that are not in parliament, whilst at work?

3. If the answer is three, then;

-can the employee make political statements against parties that are not in parliament, whilst at work or at home?

Non-nominated staff

Some staff members of Parliament were assisting with the campaigns of people not employed by Parliament. Were these staff members in contravention of the spirit of the policy, even though they were not nominated?

Citizens

Do all South African citizens have political rights, except employees of Parliament – like the soldiers that did not have labour rights?

[There is a general policy – 'non-partisanship in the workplace'- that is given to new staff members during induction. This is the policy that I was aware of and not the applied policy, which was hidden on a dusty shelf. Why is the general policy – to be found under 'Political activities' in the directives, not seen as sufficient, but the applied policy used – hidden under 'Termination of service' in the Policy Directives???]

Future

I am of the view that:

1. we should obtain the audio recording of the arbitration,

2. pursue my pension pay-out.

3. pursue the arbitration award on review [5] on the basis of my political rights.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. As stated in the letter, dated 3 May 2006 of the Secretary to Parliament

2. A few years back Constitutional Court Judge Kate O'Regan (I stand to be corrected) ruled that South African National Defence Force soldiers are firstly workers and then soldiers. The Defence Department wanted to deny the soldiers their constitutional labour rights - not to organise into unions, like other workers – due to national security concerns. I accept that I worked in a political environment, but strongly argue that I am firstly a citizen and then an employee – therefore my constitutional rights as per sections 3(2)(a) and 19(3)(b).

3. The Department of Correctional Services did not want female (Muslim) prison guards to wear their scarves and the Department of Education did not want Rasta learners to wear Rasta caps. Both cases based on Freedom of Religion.

4. This is a point that was emphasised during the arbitration, but the Commissioner found it to be "far fetched and without merit". I strongly believe that you should obtain the audio recording and make your own judgment.

5. The Labour Court should refer this matter to the Constitutional Court. [To the reader: At this stage I was quite naïve and not aware that it was a very expensive process to take the matter through the courts. These matters are not propelled through the courts by an idealist's 'hunger for justice', but by the system's 'thirst for money'.

\-----------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail

From: Justine Del Monte <Justine@irishashman.co.za>

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: 19 October 2006

Subject: RE: YOURSELF / PARLIAMENT

Dear Gabriel

I refer to the letter attached to this e-mail and confirm that despite my advice that you do not have prospects of success in reviewing the CCMA arbitration award you have instructed us to process with the review application.

As discussed with you previously we will require deposit in our trust account before we commence drafting papers. I estimate that the review application will cost in the vicinity of R30 000 and we will require an upfront deposit of R10 000. This needs to be paid into our trust account by 11h00 on Monday, 23 October 2006 in order to afford us enough time to draft the founding affidavit and file it before 15h00 on Tuesday, 24 October 2006.

Should you not be in a position to pay the requested deposit, kindly urgently let me know and I will the refer you to one of my colleagues who may be in a position to take up the matter.

I wait to hear from you.

Kind regards

Justine Del Monte

\-----------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL AID BOARD

Justice for All

Cape Town Justice Centre

85 St George's Mall

Cape Town

8000

Our Ref: R Bodart/rb

23 October 2006

Mr G Campher

Belhar 7493

Dear Sir

RE: YOUR APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID

Your letter dated 16 October 2006 refers.

We have investigated your complaint and apologise for the delay in this matter.

Your date for consultation with our Mr Bodart has been scheduled for Tuesday, 07 November 2006 at 10h00 at our offices.

We trust that you will find this in order.

Yours sincerely

CAPE TOWN JUSTICE CENTRE

Per: (signed)

COBUS ESTERHUIZEN

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - November 2006

07 November 2006

Mr J Kollapen

The Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission

Private Bag X 2700

Houghton

2041

Dear Mr Kollapen

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

I need your guidance on a matter that I believe is an infringement of my human rights. I accept that most rights can be limited, because e in a constitutional democracy, however these limitations should not be arbitrary.

Enclosed, please find a letter that I send to Mr Mohamed on 18 September 2006. I am still awaiting his feedback.

Thanking you in advance

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

07 November 2006

Mr Avril Jones*

Committee Secretary

Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs*

Parliament (RSA)

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Avril

WORKPLACE POLICY [1]

Sometimes life throws you a curve-ball, most of the time unexpectedly... and you have to play it. The results of one's play are not seen immediately, but years later. You and I started at Parliament together on 1 July 1996 and saw many changes and developments – some good and some bad. I am in the process of dealing with a curve-ball and it is difficult – one has to be careful not to hit the air, but the ball.

As you know - from the CCMA award that I asked Arthur Smith*, my former and your current colleague, to pass onto you - I lost the arbitration on 28 August 2006 [2]. Arthur gave the document to you in the last (or second last) week of September 2006, so that it could be passed onto the regional office of Nehawu in the Western Cape. I deemed this necessary, because the people ('comrades') at the Nehawu Parliament branch did not deal with my case in an effective manner, to put it mildly [3]. The idea was that Nehawu Western Cape should take the matter to the Labour Court for review. In terms of the Labour Relation Act, the timeframe is six weeks, which ended 17 October 2006. It seems I struck the air with this effort.

I would appreciate feedback on your dealings with the regional office, so that I can put this labour matter behind me.

Thanking you in advance

Best regards

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* These names are not real, to protect this former colleague from victimization. He did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1: 'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment'.

2: The CCMA Commissioner found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but substantively fair.

3: It might be that I stood against the ANC, which is an alliance partner of Nehawu, even though I was an independent ward candidate.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

08 November 2006

Ms Thandi Mokoena *

Editor – Legislations & Proceedings Section

Parliament (RSA)

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Thandi

WORKPLACE POLICY [1]

The last time we spoke was before my Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) conciliation hearing of 21 April 2006. You informed me that you were also on the receiving end of this policy, but managed to remain in your job. I was then very confident.

At the conciliation hearing, Parliament did not accept our argument;

1. I was ignorant of the policy,

2. A new (progressive) policy was workshopped in December 2005 that would allow membership of a municipal council on a part-time basis.

The matter was then referred for arbitration, which took place on 28 September 2006. We argued that;

1. I was ignorant of the policy,

2. A new (progressive) policy was workshopped in December 2005,

3. I have a constitutional right to stand for public office,

4. This policy was also applied to another employee, who was still employed by Parliament,

5. A manager of Parliament was a councillor from 1980 to 2001 (and the mayor of Kuils River: 1987-1991) and

6. I was never politically partisan in the workplace.

The CCMA Commissioner found that it was a dismissal and not a resignation, because a resignation is initiated by the employee and not the employer. He also found that the procedure was unfair [2] and awarded two months' salary. The dismissal was however substantially fair, because there was a 'conflict of interest' – I could not stand for public office, whilst I provide support to MPs.

I believe that the case was winnable, but that my union, Nehawu [3], did not play their part. They did not provide guidance or information – labour dispute processes and procedures were not explained to me. Preparation for the hearing was also not done. I raised points 4 and 5 above [4], but it was shot down, because the relevant people [5] should have testified. This issue was critical to my defence, as it would have shown that the policy was inconsistently applied.

In terms of the Labour Relations Act, I had six weeks to take the matter to the Labour Court for review. The six weeks have already passed, but more than that, I would have needed R30 000 for legal fees. The review would haven taken a year to finalise and if I lost the review, then I had to pay Parliament's legal fees, as well.

I would appreciate it if you could assist me in recounting your experience. It will help me to find closure and put this labour matter to rest.

This is how I remembered your story.

You informed your manager (Mr Robbie Karreman) that you had plans to stand in the 2004 general elections on the ticket of the Inkatha Freedom Party's (IFP) for the province of Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN). He did not have any problems with it and you applied for leave, which he approved. You then went to KZN to do electioneering, but somebody saw your face on the election posters and reported the matter to Parliament, i.e. Labour Relations unit of Mr Sean September.

Mr September outlined the above-mentioned policy to Mr Karreman, who then informed you, when you returned from vacation leave, that you had 'resigned'. You raised the matter with Mr Mtembu, the Human Resources Administration section manager, and Mr Mfenyane, the Secretary to Parliament. Merrs Mtembu and Mfenyane supported your case, because (a) you were not successful in obtaining a seat in the Provincial Parliament and (b) you had proof (the leave form) that Mr Karreman knew that you were electioneering.

It was further found that Mr Karreman wanted to use the policy to terminate your employment, because of personal differences with you. The outcome of this matter was that you retained your job and Mr Karreman, who was seen by many as being against (racial) transformation, took early retirement.

If my account of events is true, then it is peculiar that Mr September denied any knowledge of your case, when I mentioned it to him during the pre-arbitration hearing (24 August 2006). It also came out in the arbitration hearing on Monday, 28 August 2006. If my account of events is not true, than surely Mr Mtembu would have informed him of this case, seeing that their boss, Mr Dingani, the current Secretary of Parliament [6], was central to my case.

I would appreciate your input on this matter.

Thanking you in advance

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* The name is not real, to protect this former colleague from victimization. She did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. 'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment'.

2. I was not given the opportunity to state my case.

3. National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union.

4. I raised it from the witness box, when I was cross-examined by Parliament's legal team.

5. I should have asked you to testify, but I was concerned by the issue of victimization.

6. Mr Dingani was fully aware of my matter, because I wrote many letters to him to reconsider my fate.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

12 November 2006

Adv Richard Calland

Programme Manager: IDASA [1]

PO Box 1739

Cape Town

8000

Dear Adv Calland

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

We have not met formally yet, but I wish to request your guidance in a matter suitable to your expertise.

I saw you in action on Sunday, 29 October 2006 on "Inter-face", the actuality programme on the TV channel, SABC 3. The topic was; 'Should public servants have private business interests?' The leader of a small South African political party stated (proposed) that if a public servant worked for 5 years in a specific environment, that he/she should be 'cooled-off' for 5 years with respect to that environment. You raised the constitutionality [2] of the issue, with which I tend to agree.

Back to my request. I was employed by Parliament (RSA) from July 1996 to March 2006. I contravened a workplace policy [3], unknowingly, when I stood in the March 2006 local government elections as an independent ward candidate [4]. It ended up in the CCMA – the award is attached.

One of my arguments was that I have a constitutional right to stand for public office [5]. Do you think that I have a leg to stand on? If so, what is the way forward?

Thanking you in advance

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Adv Calland did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. Institute for Democracy in South Africa.

2. An expert opinion in my view, because you practiced law in Britain and completed a degree in constitutional law in South Africa.

3. 'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment'.

4. It also happened to another employee, but he stood for the ID. He was employed for 15+ years at Parliament. He did not take the CCMA route.

5. See the attached letter to the Constitutional Court.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

13 November 2006

Mr Kobus Esterhuizen

The Head: Complaints Unit

Legal Aid Board

PO Box 516 / Docex 19

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Esterhuizen

COMPLAINT II

Thank you for your letter dated 23 October 2006, which confirmed a meeting with Mr Bodart on 7 November 2006 at 10:00.

I was however tied up in the morning and on 2 November 2006 rescheduled the meeting telephonically with Mr Bodart, himself for Wed, 8 November at 15:00. It suited him, because he had another meeting at 14:30.

On Mon, 6 November, I phoned Mr Bodart to confirm – neither he nor his shared assistant. The receptionist stated that he would be in on Wednesday. I phoned again on Wed, 08 November at about 11:00 to confirm. He was not in (yet, according to the receptionist) and his assistant was not available. When I asked about Mr Bodart's diary (to establish whether our meeting was scheduled), the receptionist informed me that he carries it with him – there was no copy in the office and the best would be to call again, before I come in for the appointment (which I could not do).

I arrived at your offices at 14:30 and was informed that Mr Bodart was not in, but that he would be in the office on Friday, 10 November. When I told the receptionist that it was the second failed meeting, she told me (unsurprisingly) that Mr Bodart hurt his hand (which I did not believe).

I have come to accept that I will not be assisted by the Legal Aid Board – that justice is not for all and that I have to look elsewhere for assistance.

I however appreciate your assistance and professionalism.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - December 2006

06 December 2006

Mr Joe Phaweni

The Manager: Policy Management Unit

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Phaweni

'RESIGNATION' POLICY

It is that festive-time of the year again when one really wants to kick off the shoes, forget about work and relaxxxx. I hope that this letter finds you in good health.

The aim of this letter is to establish what caused the management board's turnabout with regard to the 'voluntary resignation' policy [note 1]. I thought that you might share this information with me, because I showed good faith by withdrawing the subpoenas for Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament, and yourself, to our CCMA [2] arbitration hearing [3] in August 2006.

I call it a 'turnabout', because the draft policy [4], which was compiled by your unit [5] in September 2005, was changed (rather discarded), because the old policy was reaffirmed in a new disguise [6]. The new policy was approved by the Presiding Officers (Parliament's political authority) in June 2006, despite unanimous staff and union approval of the draft policy.

The approximately 966 staff members were workshopped from December 2005 to March 2006 on thirteen draft polices, which included the above-mentioned policy. The aim of the workshops was to introduce the policies to employees and to elicit debate and proposed amendments to and/or endorsement of the draft policy. I accept that it was the prerogative of the management board to accept or reject the inputs of staff members, but what motivated management to table a draft policy for discussion that was diametrically opposed to the policy that was eventually adopted and approved, despite resistance from the union.

It raises a few questions:

1. Did management approve the draft policy in September 2006, because it was in line with its strategic thinking? If so, why did it not adopt the draft policy, which was unanimously supported by the people that would have to implement it, i.e. the staff members?

2. Did my candidature as an independent (municipal) councillor [i.e. against the African National Congress (ANC)] in March 2006 have anything to do with the turnabout?

3. Did your 'policy management unit' establish the conformity of the policy with sections 19(3)(b) and 158(1)(b) [7] of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, when they compiled it in September 2005.

I would really appreciate your assistance in the above-mentioned matter so as to broaden my understanding of the above-mentioned policy, as well as the policymaking process at Parliament, which is the custodian of democracy in South Africa.

Thanking you in advance.

Festive greetings

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* This former colleague did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. 'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.' This policy was a remnant of our undemocratic Apartheid past, where the majority of South Africans were disempowered and exploited, so that only a minority could have a good life. The employees of Parliament, in particular, were enslaved by this undemocratic policy, as well as the non-contributory pension scheme, which denied employees a pension when they resigned or if they left forcibly (death or dismissal) with less than 10 years of pensionable service. Recent history of South Africa, Zimbabwe and elsewhere indicates that it is not uncommon for 'freed' nations (i.e. governments) to dust-off repressive legislation or policies and apply them when it suits the government.

2: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Established in terms of section 112 of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995)

3: That is 'G Campher vs Parliament (RSA)'

4: Article 8.4 (i) 'Should an employee be elected to a position as a full-time councilor, she/he will have to resign from Parliament. As regards those who wish to take up part-time positions, they must ensure that they undertake their duties as a councillor as far as possible outside official hours of work. Specific approval has to be granted that the employee can retain her/his remuneration, as required.'

5: That is the 'Policy Management Unit'. It is interesting to note that even though this unit falls under the 'Office of the Secretary to Parliament' (according to my knowledge) there is no evidence of the existence of this unit, as per the organogram in Parliament's 2005/06 annual report!

6: Article 8.4 (b) – 'An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.'

7: Section 19(3)(b) – 'Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.' Section 158(1)(b) – 'Every citizen who is qualified to vote for a Municipal Council is eligible to be a member of that Council, except anyone who is appointed by, or is in the service of , the state in another sphere, and receives remuneration for that appointment or service, and who has been disqualified from membership of a Municipal Council in terms of national legislation [my emphasis].'

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED BY EMPLOYEES LEAVING THE SERVICES OF PARLIAMENT

NAME: Gabriel Campher

DESIGNATION: Committee secretary

SECTION: Committees

APPOINTMENT DATE: 01 July 1996

TERMINATION DATE: 06 March 2006

Reason for leaving: Dismissal

Please indicate your opinions of each of the employment factors below:

1. OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT

How did you rate your chances for advancement?

Zero, because any positive contribution (creativity, extra effort, positive work ethic) was not recognized.

2. WORKING CONDITIONS

What was your opinion of the physical conditions under which you were required to work?

Poor – high noise level in open plan; eating and drinking in work areas; no filing cabinets or system.

3. SALARY AND BENEFITS

In the light of the work you were performing and your experience and qualifications, what are your views on the salary you were being paid?

Underpaid, because my work was to make MPs look good and to provide a professional service so that they could execute their constitutional mandate.

4. JOB SATISFACTION

Indicate the degree to which you have found your work satisfying and appropriate to your

abilities/qualifications.

Minimal, because one was bogged down by low-level activities: administrative and secretarial, instead of providing procedural guidance and portfolio specific information and advice to the committee chairperson and members.

5. COMMUNICATION

(a) The organisation to you

Indicate the extent to which you feel that you were kept informed of the organisation's plans and developments affecting your work.

No consultation took place to establish how to improve the working conditions, so that employees could execute their duties professionally.

(b) You to the organisation

Indicate the extent to which you feel that you were able to communicate effectively with your supervisor and higher levels of management.

No feedback, only promises to deal with the concerns of employees. It reached a point where staff members were quiet in staff meetings, because they knew that these meetings were mere 'talk shops'.

6. RELATIONSHIP WITH FELLOW EMPLOYEES

Indicate the extent to which you found you could work harmoniously with your Supervisor and working colleagues.

Good working relationship with peers – mostly with supervisor.

7. WORKLOAD

Indicate the amount of work you were required to perform and comment on its usefulness.

Too much 'lower level' work, with the result that records (minutes, reports) were not timeously produced. This negatively affected the image of parliament in the eyes of MPs and the public.

8. TRAINING

Indicate the degree to which you have received training and guidance for your work and comment on related matters such as the appraisal system and clarity of work expectations.

Training was mostly ad-hoc and not related to the required skills of the workforce, but to spend the budget before the end of the financial year. A real appraisal system was non-existent, even though some people enriched themselves by filling in high scores. As such: (a) no checks-and-balances, (b) no linkages with staff development.

9. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND PARLIAMENT AS A GOOD ORGANISATION TO WORK FOR? WHY?

No. Parliament does not care about its workforce – no ubuntu, no batho-pele, no meeting the needs of the people (as stated in parliament's vision), especially the employees.

10. HOW WAS YOUR TERMINATION OF SERVICE HANDLED?

Traumatic. I contravened a workplace policy unknowingly and was told that I 'resigned voluntarily'. CCMA found that I was dismissed, but Parliament still believes that I resigned.

Additional comments, which you would like drawn to management attention

The fact that I complete this questionnaire nine months after my services were terminated, informs you about the way that Parliament deal with its assets, i.e. its employees. The only way to build the institution is to build its people – not by buying the best and most expensive equipment.

Interviewee's signature: GCampher

Date: 07 December 2006

Interviewer's Name: I Moorad

Rank: Unit Manager (Human Resources Section)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

07 December 2006

Mr Ishaam Moorad

Acting Section Manager: HR Administration

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Ishaam

VACATION LEAVE, PRO-RATA BONUS AND PENSION

It is that festive-time of the year again when one really wants to kick off the shoes, forget about work and relaxxxx. I hope that this letter finds you in good health and wish to congratulate you, though belated, on your appointment as acting section manager.

The aim of this letter is to establish the reason/s for the non-payment of my accumulated vacation leave and pro-rata bonus. According to Parliament's policies, an employee would be eligible for his leave and pro-rata bonus payouts, irrespective of the manner in which he leaves the Parliamentary Service. I went to the relevant office yesterday and after a few phone calls, my former colleague established that the paperwork was done, but that it was not send to the Finance Section for payment, because I did not complete an 'exit questionnaire' or the 'exit' form. These forms are normally completed before the employee leaves Parliament, but in my case it took nine months after termination of service. Can you please explain why it took this long and why Parliament did not inform me to complete these forms, when it terminated my services in March 2006?

I also wish to raise the non-payment of my pension. According to Parliament's policy, a staff member is eligible for his pension, if he is dismissed and has 10 years of pensionable service - the policy recognises any prior service to the state. I believe that I qualify for this pension, because I worked at Parliament for 9 years and 9 months and 4 years for the Education department. The problem seems to be that Parliament [1] still believes that I 'resigned', even though the CCMA found that I was dismissed.

I would appreciate your assistance to bring clarity to the above issues.

Thanking you in advance.

Season's greetings

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Mr Moorad did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. According to a letter, dated 11 October 2006, by Mr Tabata (Labour Relations Practitioner).

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel campher

Sent: 05 December 2006

To: Jacobs PC - Assistant Commissioner (SAPS)

Subject: candidates for public office

Dear Commissioner Jacobs

Following our telephonic conversation, I was the Committee Secretary for the Portfolio Committee on Defence of Parliament. We met in Parliament when your team briefed my committee on the withdrawal of SANDF units from supporting the SAPS in ('non-emergency') anti-crime operations.

I stood in the Local Government elections of 1 March 2006 and was informed by my superiors that I had 'resigned', because I contravened a policy of Parliament (unknowingly).

The aim of this e-mail is to establish whether the SAPS also limits it members to stand as candidates for public office, taking into account that they should be seen to be impartial and a-political. I would appreciate it if you can attach the relevant legislative and policy guidelines. I would also appreciate it if you can forward the position of the other security services with regard to this issue.

Thanks

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: RE: candidates for public office

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006

From: "Jacobs PC - Assistant Commissioner"

To: "Gabriel Campher"

Dear Mr Campher

Herewith relevant sections of the SAPS Act, 68 of 1995, and Constitution Section 46 of the South African Police Service Act, 68 of 1995.

Political activities of members

(1) No member shall-

(a) publicly display or express support for or associate himself or herself with a political party, organisation, movement or body;

(b) hold any post or office in a political party, organisation, movement or body;

(c) wear any insignia or identification mark in respect of any political party, organisation, movement or body; or

(d) in any other manner further or prejudice party-political interests.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as prohibiting a member from-

(a) joining a political party, organisation, movement or body of his or her choice;

(b) attending a meeting of a political party, organisation, movement or body: Provided that no member shall attend such a meeting in uniform; or

(c) exercising his or her right to vote.

Section 199(6) & (7) of the Constitution of the RSA, Act 108 of 1996:

(6) No member of any security service may obey a manifestly illegal order.

(7) Neither the security services, nor any of their members, may, in the performance of their functions-

(a) prejudice a political party interest that is legitimate in terms of the Constitution; or

(b) further, in a partisan manner, any interest of a political party.

Members who participated as candidates in previous local elections had to resign.

Our interpretation of section 46 is that a member has to resign before he or she could participate as a candidate in an election. This issue was contested in Court on a Constitutional basis and the SAPS won the case.

Hope this will be of assistance.

Kind regards

PC Jacobs

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: 07 December 2006

To: Jacobs PC - Assistant Commissioner (SAPS)

Subject: candidates for public office

Dear Commissioner Jacobs

Thanks for the info, but my reading of Section 46(1) with 46(2) is that a SAPS member (like any other citizen) may be politically active, but not in uniform. I am very curious on which basis the SAPS won the constitutional case – please provide details.

Thanks

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

Subject: RE: candidates for public office

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006

From: "Jacobs PC - Assistant Commissioner"

To: "Gabriel Campher"

Dear Mr Campher

It was a Constitutional Court case. I will get the judgement – it will take some time, because it was not reported and I did not deal with it myself. However, you will see that (1)(d) hereunder refers to further party political interest. In my view a person cannot stand for election and promote his party and candidature without furthering a party political interest. Furthermore, (1)(a)-(d) are put in alternative. The issue of the uniform relates only to attendance of political meetings.

Kind regards

PC Jacobs

\-----------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Please quote our ref: 7/2 – 13897 / O6 WC

21 DECEMBER 2006

Mr G Campher

BELHAR

7493

Dear Mr Campher

RE: YOUR COMPLAINT

Receipt of your complaint is hereby acknowledged.

The matter you have raised will be assessed to establish whether the law allows us to investigate your complaint. As soon as this process is complete, we shall revert to you and advise you accordingly.

Please note that, if you are considering instituting a civil claim against any government institution or agency, by law they must be notified within 6 months of the date of the incident complained of. A complaint lodged with the Office of the Public Protector does not interrupt this period. Should you not be sure of how the above might affect your remedies against the institution that you are complaining about, please contact us for clarification. Please note, however, that this Office cannot litigate on your behalf or represent you in any legal proceedings. You should consult an Attorney of your choice.

Kindly note that if we have not finalized the consideration and investigation of your complaint within three months of the date of this letter, we undertake to furnish you with a progress report by that date. Please do not contact us to enquire about progress before this date unless you have new information for us or if we contact you for clarification of your complaint

Kindly advise this office if there are any changes in your contact details.

With kind regards

Yours truly

(signed)

CHIEF INVESTIGATOR

PROVINCIAL OFFICE: WESTERN CAPE

[* The state made a law to protect itself. It gives a citizen six (6) months if he/she wants to institute a civil claim against the state. It seems like a long period, but the state agencies deliberately take months, even years to deal with complaints. This makes the possibility of civil claims a non-starter, because (a) the window-period had elapsed and (b) litigation is unaffordable for the average citizen.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 6

**Dismissal - January 2007**

'Behind every human right violation, is an injured person.'

Gabriel Campher

FLYER

17 January 2007

SERVING OUR COMMUNITIES

Dear Former Colleagues

I hope this letter finds you in good health. I would appreciate your assistance to show that some colleagues did (or try to do good), but unknowingly contravened an Apartheid-era policy of Parliament.

Background

As you probably know, I have 'resigned' [CCMA found it was a dismissal!] when I unknowingly (note 2) contravened a policy of Parliament. It was also unknown to many colleagues that I spoke to. The policy stated: If a staff member accept nomination as candidate for an election or appointment as member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resign voluntarily from the Service with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.

This policy is a remnant of our undemocratic past, where the employees of Parliament in particular were enslaved by this undemocratic policy, as well as the non-contributory pension scheme, which denied employees a pension when they resign or if they left 'forcibly (death or dismissal) with less than 10 years pensionable service.

I stood in the March 2006 Local Government Elections as an independent ward candidate for a statutory body (the Cape Town City Council). In December 2005, when we workshopped the draft 'employee conduct' policy, especially the part dealing with 'political participation', the old policy was never mentioned – on that basis I decided in January 2006 to stand for public office (part-time councillor).

The draft policy stated: Article 8.4 (i) 'Should an employee be elected to a position as a full-time councillor, she/he will have to resign from Parliament. As regards those who wish to take up part-time positions, they must ensure that they undertake their duties as a councillor as far as possible outside official hours of work. Specific approval has to be granted that the employee can retain her/his remuneration, as required.'

Purpose

I need your assistance to ascertain how many colleagues served their communities, but unknowingly contravened the old policy, when they stood as candidates or hold office in a statutory body. The Constitution states in section 19(3)(b): 'Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.'

The statutory bodies, I refer to in particular are;

1. School Governing Bodies – establish in terms of the Schools Act (Act 84 of 1996),

2. Community Policing Forums – est. by South African Police Service Act (Act 68, 1995)

Please ask around and contact me by 14 February 2007.

Thank you

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

(Former Committee Secretary)

[* This flyer was distributed in the Parliamentary precinct. No former colleague responded to it except, Sean September (Labour Relations), who phoned me to express his concern about the flyer being distributed in the Parliamentary precinct.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo Mail

From: "Lorraine" [lorraine@opendemocracy.org.za]

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007, 09:47

Subject: REQUEST FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Dear Mr. Campher

Following our telephonic conversation of a few days ago I am sending you information on organizations, which you can ask for legal assistance or financial help or perhaps they can recommend other organizations:

1. Freedom of Expression Institute

Ph. 011-403 8403

E-mail: fxi@fxi.org.za

2. Lawyers for Human Rights

Ph. 011-8871003

Fax. 011-8833302

3. Legal Resources Centre

Ph. 021-423 8285

Regards

Lorraine Stober

(Advisor: Open Democracy Advice Centre)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

30 January 2007

The Manager: Labour Relations

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sean

UPROAR-CAUSING FLYERS

It is always nice to communicate with a former colleague. I hope that the last few months were good to you – mine were challenging, to say the least.

I received a message on my cell phone that you wanted to speak to me about the flyers that I distributed at Parliament on Monday, 29 January 2007. Your words were (more/less): "I would like to speak to you about the flyers. It is causing an uproar."

What is wrong with the flyers? Is it not factual? I thought that;

1. I wanted to serve my community by being its representative in the Cape Town Metro-council.

2. I was 'resigned' by Parliament, but the CCMA found that I was dismissed.

3. I did not contravened the policy deliberately, but was unaware thereof, like many other colleagues.

4. We were workshopped in December 2005 on a progressive draft policy, which allowed for part-time councillorship – an indication of management's thinking on the political activities of staff.

5. The applied policy was never mentioned in the December workshop.

6. The applied policy is not in line with the constitution of South Africa or the Labour Relations Act.

7. Some colleagues were (are still) serving in school governing bodies and/or police community forums, which are statutory bodies.

I might also add that;

1. Dismissal is a traumatic experience and never during the ordeal did Parliament avail its resources (employee wellness programme) to assist me and my family.

2. The managers (junior and senior) never lived Parliament's vision; "...to meet the needs of the People..." – no ubuntu, no batho pele [of all the people, employees, the human resource, the asset, is central to the equation].

3. The CCMA found that 'voluntary resignation' is in fact a 'dismissal', but Parliament kept the terminology when it revised the policy – in future more employees might be 'resigned'.

4. Throughout the grievance (CCMA) process, I made concessions and argues in good faith, however Parliament went all out to nail me to the cross – even after the ordeal it did not want to pay my pension.

5. Parliament did not use this labour case to enlighten its staff about policy matters – some former colleagues were not aware of the case, which illustrated how Parliament communicates with its assets.

6. During the pre-arbitration hearing, I revealed to you that a colleague took part in the 2004 general elections – you stated then (and in the arbitration hearing) that you were not aware. Is that still your position? I also heard recently that another colleague (apart from Abbas and I) took part in the 2006 local government elections. Again the hollow communication strategy.

If I misrepresented the facts in the flyers, I will certainly correct it.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

GABRIEL CAMPHER

(via e-mail)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - February 2007

07 February 2007

The Secretary

Legislature of the Eastern Cape Province

Private Bag X0051

Bisho

5605

Dear Mr Mpahlwa

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES

I hope that this letter finds you I good health and that you are well-rested and fresh for the challenges of the New Year. I wish to ascertain whether there is a framework within which employees can exercise their political rights inside and outside the workplace.

I was employed by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa for nearly 10 years as a committee secretary [1] from 01 July 1996 to 06 March 2006. I was dismissed when I unknowingly contravened an Apartheid-era policy [3]. I stood as an independent ward candidate in the Local Government Elections of March 2006 [4]. Another employee, who stood for the Independent Democrats was also 'voluntary resigned' [5].

Firstly, I wish to ascertain, in the absence of an inherited Apartheid-era policy, how the legislature [6] regulates the political activities of its employees, taken into account that;

(1) the legislature is a political environment and employees should be non-partisan in the workplace.

(2) employees are firstly citizens [7] and then workers – in a constitutional and democratic state, it is essential that citizens should be partisan outside the workplace – minimally by voting for a political party or candidate [8] and maximally by being a candidate standing for public office [9].

Parliament revised the Apartheid-era policy and it was approved by the Presiding Officers on 23 June 2006. I am of the opinion that this policy [10] categorically denies certain South African citizens (Parliament-RSA employees) particular constitutional rights – (a) to stand for public office and (b) freedom of expression [11]. In addition, it is not in line with the CCMA finding, i.e. that 'voluntary resignation' amounted to 'dismissal'.

Secondly, I wish to ascertain how many employees of the legislature stood in any of the elections since 1994. Are they still employed by the legislature? I am of the opinion that an employee of a legislature (local, provincial or national) can be a candidate in an election, but that he/she should resign, if successful in his/her sphere of government, because it would constitute a conflict of interest – he /she cannot be baas and Klaas*.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours in freedom.

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* These are two loaded words in the broader South African context. Baas is Afrikaans for 'boss', which is always a White person and Klaas is the worker, always a black person. In this specific (labour) context, it is merely 'employer' and 'employee'.]

NOTES:

1. Some legislatures call it 'committee clerk' or 'committee-coordinator'.

2. Even though Parliament felt that I 'resigned voluntarily', the CCMA found that I was dismissed – see attached CCMA award.

3. Directive of Parliament: Chapter 8, Article 4(1) – If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Parliamentary Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment. This policy also makes employees that served in Schools Governing Bodies and Police Community Forums (and there were some) offenders, because the last-mentioned statutory bodies were established by the South African Schools Act (Act No. 84 of 1996) and the South African Police Service Act (Act No. 68 of 1995), respectively – see enclosed documents.

4. In December 2005, all Parliament's employees were workshopped on the draft "Employee Conduct" policy, which dealt with 'political participation', amongst other things. The Apartheid-era policy was never mentioned at the workshop and on that basis I decided in January 2006 to stand for public office – to serve my community.

The draft policy stated: Article 8.4(i) – should an employee be elected to a position as a full-time councillor, she/he will have to resign from Parliament. As regards those who wish to take up part-time positions, they must ensure that they undertake their duties a councillor as far as possible outside official hours of work. Specific approval has to be granted that the employee can retain her/his remuneration, as required.

5. He did not follow the 'labour process', like I did, as he thought his political party (Independent Democrats) would make representations to Parliament's political and administrative bosses, but nothing came of it.

6. The nine provinces and legislatures were only established in 1993 by sections 124 and 125 of the Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993), respectively.

7. All the citizens have certain constitutionally enshrined politically rights.

8. "Every citizen has the right to fair, free and regular elections for any legislature body established in terms of the constitution" [Section 19(2) – Constitution of the RSA (Act 108, 1996)].

9. "Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office" [Section 19(3)(b) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa]

10. Article 8.4(b) – An employee who stands for election to be a member of the Assembly or a delegate of the NCoP or municipal council or Provincial legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.

11. For example, expressing a different political opinion.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT

Telephone: (040) 609 2762

Facsimile: (040) 63e 3274

Enquiries: Mr Netshitumbu

Date: 20 February 2007

Mr. Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Sir

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES

1. The above matter refers.

2. Your letter dated the 7th of February has been referred to me to respond.

3. The policy which forms the subject matter of your dispute is not applicable to the

Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature and this Legislature has not passed a similar policy.

4. The Legislature staff are required to be non-partisan and may not perform any remunerative work outside the Legislature without prior permission of the Executive Committee.

5. This Legislature has not dealt with a similar case in the past and therefore cannot give you any statistics.

6. I thank you.

(signed)

LI Netshitumbu

LEGAL ADVISOR: EC LEGISLATURE

[* I wrote the same letter to all nine provincial legislatures, requesting information on the policies that guide the political activities of employees. It is only the Eastern Cape legislature that responded!]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

27 February 2007

Adv LI Netshitumbu

Legal Advisor

Legislature of the Eastern Cape Province

Private Bag X0051

Bisho

5605

Dear Adv Netshitumbu

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES

Thank you very much for the quick response, dated 20 February 2007, to my letter of 7 February 2007. It makes me, as a citizen of a constitutional and democratic South Africa, feel appreciated – batho pele (people first).

The aim of my last letter was, and I quote:

"...to ascertain whether there is a framework within which employees can exercise their political rights, inside and outside the workplace."

You stated that (a) your legislature does not have a policy like National Parliament, (b) employees have to be non-partisan and (c) employees may have another income without prior permission. You did not address my query explicitly, so certain issues are unclear.

My interpretation of your response:

1. Your legislature does not (yet) has a formal policy regulating the political activities of employees.

2. Employees should be non-partisan outside the workplace, as well.

3. An employee, without prior permission, can stand for public office.

4. An employee, with prior permission, can stand for public office and if elected, take up that office (and income), on a part-time basis.

Please correct me, if my interpretation is off the mark.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours in freedom

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* The recipient did not respond]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - March 2007

STATEMENT BY MR KASPER HAHNDIEK

03 March 2007

Employment

I was employed by Parliament (RSA) from September 1970 to November 2006. I took early retirement on 1 December 2006, at the rank of Secretary to the National Assembly* of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Political Activities of Staff Members

I was aware that Mr WF Rossouw, Section Manager of the Finance Section, served as a councillor and mayor of Kuils River** for many years, whilst he was employed by Parliament.

It came as a surprise to me that Gabriel Campher was dismissed when he stood in the 2006 Local Government elections. I was not aware of a specific and formally accepted policy in place at the time that presumed that an employee resigns when he/she stands for, or is elected to a statutory body. The said policy is;

"If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Parliamentary Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment."

This statement was made to the best of my recollection.

(signed)

MR K HAHNDIEK

* The Secretary of the National Assembly was part of the management board, i.e. the Secretary to Parliament, General Manager, Secretary to National Assembly, Secretary to National Council of Provinces and the three Division Heads.

** Kuils River is a suburb of Cape Town.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

06 March 2007

Mr Paul Graham

Executive Director: IDASA

PO Box 1739

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Graham

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

I support IDASA's stance to bring transparency into the funding of political parties. Even though the hawks may easy that you should have used the courts to force the ANC to establish the needed legislation, you were right to take them on their word. They reneged on the deal, but we must remind ourselves that Cape Town was not built in one day – the struggle continues.

The purpose of my letter is to follow up on the enclosed letter that I wrote to Adv Calland in 2006. I did not receive any response. I would appreciate it if you could guide me on this matter.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Mr Graham did not respond to this letter.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

12 March 2007

The Director

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Private Bag X94

Marshalltown

2107

Dear Madam

NON-COMPLIANCE OF RULING [WE 4714-06]

This is a follow-up on my letter of 16 January 2007 – I am still waiting a response.

I would appreciate your assistance to obtain my pension from my previous employer, Parliament (RSA), despite a CCMA ruling that I was dismissed [1].

Even though Parliament had reservation about the award [2], they abided by the ruling, i.e. payment of two months salary. However, when I requested my pension [3], they reverted to their original position [4] - by implication non-compliance of the CCMA arbitration ruling.

Parliament's non-contributory pension scheme stated that, an employee qualifies for a pension, if he/she is dismissed with more than 10 years pensionable service [5].

I would appreciate your urgent intervention in this matter.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. See CCMA case no. WE 4714-06 [G. Campher vs Parliament (RSA)]

2. See attached letter, dated 22 September 2006.

3. See attached letter, dated 02 October 2006.

4. See attached letter, dated 11 October 2006.

5. Article 8 (b) of "The Pension Scheme for Officers of Parliament" – see attachment.

[* No response from the CCMA]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

11 March 2007

Ms Zanele Mene

The Section Manager: Committee Section

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Zanele

CONTRAVENTION OF POLICY

I hope that this letter finds you in good health. It was the first anniversary of my dismissal on 6 March 2007, but certain issues are still a mystery to me. Perhaps you could provide the answer to one of them.

I would like to know when (date and time) your office was informed that I contravened the policy, mentioned below:

'If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the (Parliamentary) Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.'

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

12 March 2007

Mr Sean September

The Manager: Labour Relations

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sean

CONTRAVENTION OF POLICY

I hope that this letter finds you in good health. It was the first anniversary of my dismissal on 6 March 2007, but certain issues are still a mystery to me. Perhaps you could provide some of the answers.

I would like to know when the policy was adopted. In addition I would like to know when and how your office was informed that I contravened the said policy, i.e. the date and the 'route' of the information – did you receive it directly or via another office? The said policy is:

'If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the (Parliamentary) Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.'

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

15 March 2007

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

RE: CONTRAVENTION OF POLICY

Your letters dated 11 and 12 March 2007 addressed to Section Manager: Committees and the Manager: Labour Relations refers.

Please be advised that we consider your dismissal case to have been closed and as such we will not entertain any further correspondence regarding the matter.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

MA TABATA

HR Practitioner: Labour Relations

\-----------------------------------------------------------

21 March 2007

Mr MS Booi, MP

African National Congress

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Booi

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

It is good to talk to you after more than a year, since my departure from the Parliamentary Service. It is significant that I am writing this letter on the 13th Human Rights Day of our young democracy – our baby has become a teenager... Even though the first anniversary of my dismissal [1] was on 06 March 2007, there are certain issues that are still a mystery to me. Perhaps you could assist to find some of the answers.

I wish to establish when 'the story broke', i.e. when, how and to whom it was reported that a Parliamentary staff member was standing in the local government elections. This is not a witch-hunt [2] and therefore no person should be named - whether the person/s was/were a MP or member of staff or the public is sufficient.

I am approaching you for two reasons. Firstly, I have walked a long road with you since 1999 [3], when you joined the Portfolio Committee on Defence. During this time I have served you and the Committee with vigour and dedication, never compromising on professionalism and non-partisanship. We worked closely together, because you were (still are) an influential and senior member of the Committee and the African National Congress, which resulted in you becoming the interim chairperson for three months in 2004.

Secondly, you mentioned your surprise, to find my name on the candidature list [4] for the Local Government Elections, on Thursday, 16 February 2006, when we briefly met in the office of Ms Thandi Tobias, chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence. I told you then that I wanted to contribute to the upliftment of my community. Ms Tobias, who did not seem too concerned, was under the impression that I had to resign before I could enter the race, as was the practice in the Public Service [5].

I would appreciate your assistance to fill the gaps, so that I can lay this matter to rest.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Mr Booi did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. See that attached CCMA ruling. In December 2005, staff workshopped draft policies, one of which allowed membership of a municipal council on a part-time basis. I believed that it was the thinking of the institution and entered the race. Furthermore, the Constitution [section 19(3)(b)] allows any South African citizen to stand for public office.

2. It is also not an effort to bash 'whistle blowing', because I strongly believe that whistle blowing is fundamental to our ethical efforts to break the back of any transgression; whether it is petty or violent crime, corruption or nepotism. Whistle blowing should be celebrated.

3. You have been a MP since 1994, but concentrated mostly on the Safety & Security portfolio.

4. The list was publicized on the Independent Electoral Commission's (IEC) website on Monday, 13 February 2007.

5. During the 2004 general elections, public servants, who stood in the elections, were fired, but it was later reversed by the Minster of Public Service and Administration. The Parliamentary Service (legislative branch) is not the Public Service (executive branch). At the time of my dismissal, the Parliamentary Service did not have any policies that regulated the participation of employees in elections.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

21 March 2007

Mr DM Dlali, MP

African National Congress

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Dlali

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

It is good to talk to you after more than a year, since my departure from the Parliamentary Service. It is significant that I am writing this letter on the 13th Human Rights Day of our young democracy – our baby has become a teenager... Even though the first anniversary of my dismissal [1] was on 06 March 2007, there are certain issues that are still a mystery to me. Perhaps you could assist to find some of the answers.

I wish to trace the moment when 'the story broke', i.e. when, how and to whom it was reported that a Parliamentary staff member was standing in the local government elections. This is not a witch-hunt [2] and therefore no person should be named - whether the person/s was/were a staff member, MP or member of the public is sufficient.

I am approaching you for two reasons. Firstly, I have walked a long road with you since 1998 [3], when you joined the Portfolio Committee on Defence. During this time I have served you and the Committee with vigour and dedication, never compromising on professionalism and non-partisanship. We worked closely together, because you were an influential and senior member of the Committee and the African National Congress [4].

Secondly, you were surprised to meet me at the Independent Electoral Commission's (IEC) combined Western Cape Provincial and Local Party Liaison Committees meeting on Tuesday, 14 February 2006. The aim of the meeting was to identify problems that the political parties and independent candidates experienced and to serve as the platform where issues should be resolved, so that an appropriate climate could be created for the elections. At the meeting we were equals, each representing different constituencies.

I would appreciate your assistance to fill the gaps, so that I can lay this matter to rest.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Mr Dlali did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. Parliament argued that I resigned when I contravened a generally unknown policy. The CCMA found that it was a dismissal – see that attached CCMA ruling. In December 2005, staff workshopped draft policies, one of which allowed membership of a municipal council on a part-time basis. I believed that it was the thinking of the institution and entered the race. Furthermore, the Constitution [section 19(3)(b)] allows any South African citizen to stand for public office.

2. It is also not an effort to bash 'whistle blowing', because I strongly believe that whistle blowing is fundamental to our ethical efforts to break the back of any transgression; whether it is petty or violent crime, corruption or nepotism. Whistle blowing should be celebrated.

3. You have been a MP since (I believe) 1994, but concentrated mostly on the Land & Agriculture portfolios.

4. Your inputs were missed in the Defence Committee, but you remained an influential member of the African National Congress in other committees.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

21 March 2007

Mr SB Ntuli, MP

African National Congress

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Ntuli

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

It is good to talk to you after more than a year, since my departure from the Parliamentary Service. It is significant that I am writing this letter on the 13th Human Rights Day of our young democracy – our baby has become a teenager... Even though the first anniversary of my dismissal [1] was on 06 March 2007, there are certain issues that are still a mystery to me. Perhaps you could assist to find some of the answers.

I wish to trace the moment when 'the story broke', i.e. when, how and to whom it was reported that a Parliamentary staff member was standing in the local government elections. This is not a witch-hunt [2] and therefore no person should be named - whether the person/s was/were a staff member, MP or member of the public is sufficient.

I am approaching you for two reasons. Firstly, I have walked a long road with you since 1996, when I joined the Parliamentary Service and the Portfolio Committee on Defence. During this time I have served you and the Committee with vigour and dedication, never compromising on professionalism and non-partisanship. We worked closely together, because you were (still are) an influential and senior member of the Committee and the African National Congress.

Secondly, you were surprised that my name was on the candidature list [3] for the Local Government Elections, and I believed shocked when I was dismissed by Parliament. I received the shock of my life on 6 March 2006, when I was told that I have resigned from the Parliamentary Service [4] - I seemingly contravened a generally unknown policy. My ignorance of the policy and my almost ten-year service record were not sufficient to reverse the 'resignation' – the CCMA found that it was a dismissal.

I would appreciate your assistance to fill the gaps, so that I can lay this matter to rest.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Mr Ntuli did not respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. See the attached CCMA ruling. In December 2005, staff workshopped draft policies, one of which allowed membership of a municipal council on a part-time basis. I believed that it was the thinking of the institution and entered the race. Furthermore, the Constitution [section 19(3)(b)] allows any South African citizen to stand for public office.

2. It is also not an effort to bash 'whistle blowing', because I strongly believe that whistle blowing is fundamental to our ethical efforts to break the back of any transgression; whether it is petty or violent crime, corruption or nepotism. Whistle blowing should be celebrated.

3. The list was publicized on the Independent Electoral Commission's (IEC) website on Monday, 13 February 2007.

4. See attached letter from Ms Mene, my former section manager.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

21 March 2007

Dr GW Koornhof, MP

African National Congress

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Dr Koornhof

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

It is good to talk to you after more than a year, since my departure from the Parliamentary Service. It is significant that I am writing this letter on the 13th Human Rights Day of our young democracy – our baby has become a teenager... Even though the first anniversary of my dismissal [1] was on 06 March 2007, there are certain issues that are still a mystery to me. Perhaps you could assist to find some of the answers.

I wish to trace the moment when 'the story broke', i.e. when, how and to whom it was reported that a Parliamentary staff member was standing in the local government elections. This is not a witch-hunt [2] and therefore no person should be named - whether the person/s was/were a staff member, MP or member of the public is sufficient.

I am approaching you for two reasons. Firstly, I have walked a long road with you since 1996, when I joined the Parliamentary Service and the Portfolio Committee on Defence. During this time I have served you and the Committee with vigour and dedication, never compromising on professionalism and non-partisanship. We worked closely together, because you were (still are) an influential and senior member of the Committee and the African National Congress.

Secondly, you were surprised that my name was on the candidature list [3] for the Local Government Elections, and I believed shocked when I was dismissed by Parliament. I received the shock of my life on 6 March 2006, when I was told that I have resigned from the Parliamentary Service [4] - I seemingly contravened a generally unknown policy. My ignorance of the policy and my almost ten-year service record were not sufficient to reverse the 'resignation' – the CCMA found that it was a dismissal.

I would appreciate your assistance to fill the gaps, so that I can lay this matter to rest.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* Dr Koornhof did respond to this letter.]

NOTES:

1. See the attached CCMA ruling. In December 2005, staff workshopped draft policies, one of which allowed membership of a municipal council on a part-time basis. I believed that it was the thinking of the institution and entered the race. Furthermore, the Constitution [section 19(3)(b)] allows any South African citizen to stand for public office.

2. It is also not an effort to bash 'whistle blowing', because I strongly believe that whistle blowing is fundamental to our ethical efforts to break the back of any transgression; whether it is petty or violent crime, corruption or nepotism. Whistle blowing should be celebrated.

3. The list was publicized on the Independent Electoral Commission's (IEC) website on Monday, 13 February 2007.

4. See attached letter from Ms Mene, my former section manager.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

21 March 2007

The Chief Investigator

Office of the Public Protector

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sir/Madam

COMPLAINT – PROGRESS REPORT

I wish to thank you for your letter, dated 21 December 2006 (ref. 7/2-13897/06/WC) in which you acknowledged receipt of my complaint. It is significant that I am writing this letter on the 13th Human Rights Day of our young democracy – our baby has become a teenager...

In your last letter you stated that I should allow three months to investigate my complaint, before approaching you again. The three months has elapsed and I wish to enquire what progress you can report – hopefully the restoration of my human rights.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - April 2007

E-mail

Brigadier-General Masters

Director – Human Resources System

[Policies and Regulations]

South African National Defence Force

Pretoria

0001

Dear General Masters

I was the Committee Secretary for the Portfolio Committee on Defence of Parliament (RSA) from 1996 to 2006. I believe that we might have met in Cape Town. I would appreciate your assistance to get a better understanding of 'conflict of interest' and 'non-partisanship' in the public sector. I was dismissed in March 2006, when I stood in the 2006 Local Government Elections as an independent ward candidate.

I want to establish whether a member of the SANDF can stand, as a candidate, in an election for a statutory legislative body; i.e. a local municipal council, provincial legislature or Parliament.

In terms of section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution (Act 108, 1996) any South African citizen can "stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office". I accept that this human right, like all other human rights, can be limited in terms of section 36. This is illustrated by section 50(8)(a) of the Defence Act (Act 42, 2002) which states that "no member of the Regular Force may be a member of Parliament or any other legislative body". This section clearly wants to avoid SANDF members having 'conflicts of interest', because they cannot be employed by the executive branch (Department of Defence) and the legislative branch (Parliament).

Please correct me, if I am wrong, but it seems that section 50 allows:

1. Reserve Force members to be members of a legislative body.

2. Regular Force can stand as candidates for a legislative body, but if they are successful they must resign as members of the SANDF.

3. SANDF members, whilst in uniform, should not further or prejudice any party political interests, i.e. he/she should be non-partisan in the workplace.

4. Regular Force & Reserve Force members can:

(a) exercise their democratic right to vote in elections, but not in uniform

(b) join a political party, but not in uniform

(c) attend political party meetings, but not in uniform

(d) stand in elections for legislative bodies, but not in uniform

In short, section 50 allows SANDF members to partake in political activities, but they should do it in their private time, as private citizens.

I would appreciate your assistance to clarify section 50.

Thanks

(signed)

Gabriel Campher

17 April 2007

[* Gen. Masters did not respond.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail

Dear Commissioner Jacobs

I hope that you enjoyed the festive break and that things are cracking at work, because our last conversation was on Fri, 8 Dec 2006. In the last communiqué you indicated that the SAPS won a court case against a member that contravened section 46(1)(d) of the SAPS Act (Act 68,1995), i.e. he/she furthered or prejudiced party political interests. I would appreciate it if you can forward the reference of this court case.

Thanks

Gabriel Campher

17 April 2007

[* Com Jacobs responded positively to the request.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Response of Ms Patricia de Lille, President of the Independent Democrats (ID).

I received a telephone call from Ms De Lille on Thursday, 19 April 2007, the day after I hand-delivered a letter to her at her Parliamentary Office.

She informed me that Shamiel Abbas was working for the ID and that they did not have success in their discussions with Parliament. She did not elaborate on the substance or people that were involved in the talks.

She wanted to know whether the case could be taken to the Labour Court, but I explained that it was outside the legally allowed timeframe. She then promised to take it up with a friend, who was a judge at the Labour Court. I repeated that it would not be worthwhile, because we were outside the timeframe. I also explained that even if it was within the timeframe, that funding would be an issue, because the Labour Court was at the same level as a High Court.

The telephone call left me in no doubt that Ms De Lille did not understand the political and constitutional aspects of the matter. This was very disappointing, because she is the leader of a political party that is respected by many South Africans.

What is the ID?

The Independent Democrats (ID) was founded by Patricia de Lille in 2003 and was the first political party in South Africa to be led by a woman, contest elections and win seats. De Lille was a member of the Africa-centric political party, the 'Pan-Africanist Congress' (PAC), that argued that Africa belonged to Black people, only. She came into the national spotlight when she used her parliamentary privilege as an MP of the PAC to name, mostly ANC-aligned people that were fingered in the Arms deal scandal. She would later leave the PAC, which only had three seats in parliament and form her own party.

"Patricia de Lille started the ID to fulfill the need for a new political voice that would be guided by the hard-fought values and rights enshrined in the Constitution." [Source: ID's website - my emphasis]

[The underlined words above raise ethical questions about the ID leader, who was fully aware of the violation of the political and economic rights of two fellow South Africans. The accusation can also be laid at the door of other politicians; the UDM leader and Members of Parliament (ANC and DA) that I worked with in the Defence Committee. Mr VB Ndlovu (IFP) and Prof Asmal (ANC) were the only MPs that wrote letters on my behalf.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Private Bag X2700

Houghton

2041

Date: 20th April 2007

Our Ref: A23/04/207

Provincial Ref: WC/26/459-bs

Mr Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Sir,

RE: APPEAL TO THE CHAIRPERSON

The above matter and your letter dated the 7th day of November 2006 refers.

I kindly confirm receipt of the aforementioned e-mail and the contents thereof has been noted.

The South African Human Rights Commission (hereafter the 'Commission') was established to investigate prima facie violations of human rights as contained within the Bill of Rights, which is Chapter Two of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.

In terms of Article 4.1 of the Commission's Complaints Handling procedures:

"4.1 The Commission may reject any complaint, which is -

4.1.3 The subject of a dispute before a court of law, tribunal, any statutory body, any body with internal dispute resolution mechanisms or settled between the parties, or in which there is a judgment on the issues in the complaint or finding of such court of law, tribunal or statutory body..."

In terms of Article 4.2 of the Commission's Complaints Handling Procedures:

"4.2. If in the opinion of the Head of the Legal Services programme... the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission, or could be dealt with more effectively or expeditiously by another organisation, statutory body or institution created by the Constitution or any other piece of legislation it shall...refer the complainant to such an appropriate body..."

On perusing your file I kindly note that the Legal Services Programme of the Western Cape Provincial Office of the Commission on or about July 2006 duly confirmed that your should refer your complaint to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (hereafter referred to as the 'CCMA'), which is a dispute resolution body established in terms of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 (as amended). The CCMA is an independent body and does not belong to and is not controlled by any political party, trade union or business. It is not controlled by the state although the public funds it. It also may receive grants, donations and bequests.

The said Legal Services Programme of the Western Cape Provincial Office of the Commission was of the view that there was nothing further it could do in this matter and proceeded to close your file.

After a thorough analysis and due consideration of your complaint I confirm that the decision of the Legal Services Programme of the Western Cape Provincial Office of the Commission, to refer the complaint to the CCMA, was in compliance of the Commission's Complaints Handling Procedures, in that the said Law Society is such an institution which could more effectively and expeditiously deal with your complaint.

Notwithstanding the above and as you wish to pursue the constitutionality of the policy in dispute in this matter I confirm that the Legal Services Programme of the Western Cape Provincial Office of the Commission should proceed to do so.

I, on that basis, accordingly uphold the appeal and have forwarded your file back to the Legal Services Programme of the Western Cape Provincial Office of the Commission so that your complaint may be investigated further.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PER: NJ KOLLAPEN

CHAIRPERSON

Cc: Head Of Department: Legal Services Programme (SAHRC)

Cc: Provincial Manager, Western Cape Province (SAHRC)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

23 April 2007

Ms B Mbete, MP

Speaker: National Assembly

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Madam Speaker

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

I wish to congratulate Parliament and you [1], in particular, on behalf of myself (and I am sure the nation at large) for replacing the Apartheid-era emblem of Parliament on Tuesday, 27 March 2007. Parliament has become, symbolically at least, a People's Parliament, as encapsulated by the symbols and motto of the new emblem. It is significant that the change-over happens in the year that we celebrate the 13th Human Rights Day of our young democracy – our baby has become a teenager...

The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance to obtain information from the Parliamentary Service. Attached, pleas find the letter that I send to them (and copied to you) on 21 March 2007.

I am of the opinion that the Parliamentary Service should release the information, because as I stated in the previous letter "everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state" (section 32(1)(a) – Constitution). As a constitutional democracy, South Africa, hails the Constitution, as the basic law, unlike a majoritarian democracy, where the views of a specific majority (or political party that represents that majority) takes precedence. In the previous dispensation the National Party represented the (exclusive) majority, whilst the African National Congress represents the (inclusive) majority in the current dispensation. Apart from the character of the 'majority', another difference is that the Constitution is supreme in the current dispensation [2] and not Parliament, as it was in the previous era.

This places Members of Parliament (MPs) and the 'neutral (or non-partisan) presiding officers, in particular, in a difficult position (ethically speaking), because they have to put the interests of the People first [3]. This is formalised by the oath or affirmation, which they take when the become honourable MPs;

"I, A.B. swear / solemnly affirm that I will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa and will obey, respect and uphold the Constitution and all other law of the Republic; and I solemnly promise to perform my functions as a Member of the National Assembly or permanent delegate to the National Council of Provinces to the best of my ability. (in the case of an oath: 'So help me God'" [my emphasis. The quote is from Schedule 2 of the Constitution]

I would appreciate your intervention in this matter.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

c.c. – Mr Z Dingani: Secretary to Parliament (RSA)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - May 2007

2 May 2007

Dear Gabriel

My apology for replying so late to your letter dated 21 March 2007.

I have studied the documents you have forwarded to me and I tend to agree with you about the acceptance of the outcome of this unfortunate episode. The CCMA has ruled in the matter between yourself and Parliament based on the policies and procedures of Parliament, and the fact that the "-applicant's right to procedural fairness was grossly violated", upon which Parliament was ordered to compensate you with R18, 666-00. It seems that this judgment has brought the case to a close, unless you want to take the matter further.

I have no information on the details about your involvement in the local government elections, as I was deployed in my constituency area at that time, both before and after the elections. I therefore cannot fill any gaps for you as requested by yourself.

I hope that you will not be discouraged by this incident. Learn from the mistakes and keep your head high, I am sure you will find an employment where you will accelerate!

Kind regards,

(signed)

Gerhard Koornhof, MP

\-----------------------------------------------------------

08 May 2007 *

The Executive Director

Lawyers for Human Rights

PO Box 719

Stellenbosch

7599

Dear Sir / Madam

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

I hereby wish to request the assistance and guidance of your institution to test the validity and constitutionality of one of Parliament's workplace policies in court.

I was an employee of Parliament (RSA) from 1 July 1996 to 6 March 2006. On 06 march 2006, I was informed that I have 'resigned voluntarily' [1], because I contravened a generally unknown workplace policy, when I stood in the local government elections of 01 March 2006. I stood as an independent ward councillor. The policy was [2];

'If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the

(Parliamentary) Service voluntarily, with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.'

In my opinion, the said policy is unconstitutional [3]. I accept that this political right can be limited, because rights are not absolute. I disagree, however with the view that of others [4] that this right is limited by section 36 of the Constitution, as I am of the view that it can only be limited by national legislation [5].

I wish to pursue the constitutionality of this policy and would appreciate the assistance of your institution in this regard. This policy is a product of Parliament, but it permeates ever fabric of the civil service. It impacts negatively on the political human rights of thousands of South Africans; those working in all the statutory legislative bodies – nationally, provincially and locally, in particular and in the civil service n general. It negatively affects the political activities of the security services, specifically the South African Police Service and the South African National Defence Force [6].

Enclosed, please find the following documents for further background;

1. CCMA arbitration award,

2. Letter written to Parliament's Policy Unit manager [7],

3. Letter written to the director of the CCMA,

4. Letter written to Parliament's Labour Relations Unit Manager (plus flyer).

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

Mobile: 083 123 45678

Tel. No: 021 876 321 **

* This date has been corrected. The original letter stated '2006'.

** Not actual phone numbers

NOTES:

1. The CCMA found that I was dismissed.

2. A new policy effective from 1 July 2006: "An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or delegate to the National Council of Provinces or municipal council or a Provincial legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect form the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer." This allows membership of other statutory bodies, like a School Governing Body!

3. This policy denies the Parliamentary employee his/her constitutional political and economic rights, because by accepting nomination, the employee loses his/her job, even though there is no guarantee that he/she will secure appointment to a statutory body. In terms of section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996, every citizen (including employees) has the constitutional (fundamental human) right to stand for public office. I am of the view that South Africans are citizens first and then employees. In the case South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Another 1999(6) BCLR 615 (CC), Constitutional Court Judge Kate O'Regan found that the SANDF members are workers first and then soldiers – such they have the right to join a trade union, even though she attached certain conditions that only applied to soldiers, because of the nature of their work.

4. View of the South African Human Rights Commission. There is a long list of individual and institutions that I wrote to over the last 14 months.

5. See section 158(1)(b) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996.

6. No member of the Regular Force may serve as a member of Parliament or any other legislative body [Section 50(8)(a) of the Defence Act (Act 42 of 2002]. Also see sections 46(1) and 46(2) of the South African Police Act (Act 68 of 1995). I accept that a person cannot be a soldier or policeman and an MP, but candidature should be allowed. If he/she makes it, he/she should resign as soldier or policeman; if not, he/she should return to his/her job.

7. This letter was not answered.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

STELLENBOSCH OFFICE

PO Box 719

Stellenbosch

7599

Tel: +27 21 887 1003

Fax: +27 21 883 3302

Date: 16 May 2007

Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Sir

Re: Yourself vs Parliament (RSA) – WE 4714-06

We refer to the above and correspondence dated the 8th May 2006 (sic. Which in all probability should be dated 2007), be as it may, same of which was received by writer hereof on the 16th of May 2007.

We herewith advise that we take note of your assertions in the above mentioned letter and accordingly advise, that currently the Lawyers for Human Rights Office, Stellenbosch is currently occupied by the Security of Farm Workers' Project, which enforces the rights of farm workers facing arbitrary and unfair evictions in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA).

In the circumstances, it is beyond our objective and mandate to conduct cases as emanating from your case. It would be advisable to approach a private attorney spesialising in Labour Law to proceed with your matter, based upon further determinations of the merits of your case. It is further advisable to approach the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) in order to obtain their assistance in lobbying for changes to the policy implemented.

We wish you all the best in your efforts and endeavours.

Yours faithfully

Per: Lawyers for Human Rights

(signed)

Kamal Makan

Project Co-ordinator: Security Farm Workers Project

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mails to and from the Parliament of the United Kingdom

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel campher

Sent: 22 May 2007 10:15

To: HCInfo

Subject: politics of employees

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to enquire whether employees of the British Parliament can stand in elections for legislative statutory bodies.

Thank you

Mr G Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

Dear Mr Campher,

Thanks for your enquiry.

Employees of Parliament are usually employed on terms analogous to the civil service and must remain politically neutral in their work. They are not allowed to be members of political parties. There would be nothing to stop an employee resigning their post and standing for election as a party candidate, or standing as an independent candidate.

You can read about the conditions of employment of staff members in the staff handbooks of the Commons and Lords which are available on the Parliament website ('Staff Handbook', under 'S') http://www.parliament.uk/index/index4.cfm.

I hope this is useful

Martin Davies

Enquiries Manager

House of Commons Information Office

Tel: 020 7219 4272

email: hcinfo@parliament.uk

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel campher

Sent: 23 May 2007 09:15

To: Archives

Subject: Politics of employees

Dear Sir / Madam

I wish to establish whether employees of Parliament can stand in elections for legislative statutory bodies?

Thank you

G Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

Thank you for your email.

Please follow the links below to the House of Lords staff handbook.

This link is to the section on political activities

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldhandbk/hdbk15.htm#a180

This link is to the appendix on policy on political impartiality and safeguarding official information.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldhandbk/hdbk28.htm

I hope this helps

Joseph Topping

House of Lords Information Office

Tel: 0207 219 3107

Fax: 0207 219 0620

email: hlinfo@parliament.uk

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel campher [mailto:camphergabriel@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, 25 May 2007 10:50

To: House of Lords Information Office

Subject: partisan employees

Dear Joseph Topping

Thank you for the HoL Staff handbook.

In South Africa, the Constitution [Act 108, 1996 - section 19(3)(b)] allows citizens to stand for political office. The Constitution allows this to be limited by national legislation, but not workplace policies. This is correct in my opinion, because democracy depends on buy-in from all citizens - to vote and to stand for office. An employee should be allowed to stand for office and if elected he/she should resign to avoid a conflict of interest.

How do you regulate the partisanship of employees, taking into account that they are citizens first and then employees of parliament, i.e. (a) is there any legislation regulating political activities of employees and (b) what criteria do the Head of Human Resources apply when employees want to stand for public office?

Thank you

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: TOPPING, Joseph

Sent: 25 May 2007 11:38

To: HoL Human Resources

Subject: FW: partisan employees

Olivia,

I have responded to this person but he has come back with further questions below, which I think it would be better for HR to respond - is this ok? I have pasted the initial enquiry at the bottom of the email.

Thanks

Joey

Joseph Topping

House of Lords Information Office

Tel: 0207 219 3107

Fax: 0207 219 0620

email: hlinfo@parliament.uk

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: HoL Human Resources

Sent: 1 June 2007 09:57

To: EMBLETON, Geoff; PIERONI, Margaret

Subject: Freedom of Information request

Hi,

Please see below - can you help?

Thanks

Olivia

Kind regards

Olivia Clear

Office Manager: Human Resources Office

House of Lords

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

RE: Freedom of Information request

TO: You

CC: 2 recipients

Dear Gabriel

Thank you for your enquiry.

I can confirm that there is no legislation limiting or regulating the political activities of employees of Parliament.

The criteria applied by the Head of Human Resources in the event that a member of staff wishes to stand for public office are set out in general terms in Appendix L of the staff handbook, of which you have a copy. The underlying principle is that the member of staff should not be in a position where he/she is able to bring undue influence to bear in the legislative decision making process or indeed be perceived to be in such a position.

As you say in your email below, staff who wish to stand for political office may do so but, if elected, may be required to resign from their job in the House if there is such a conflict or perceived conflict of interests.

I hope this is helpful

Yours sincerely

Geoff Embleton

Deputy Head of Human Resources

020 7219 2767

\-----------------------------------------------------------

[* Information from the UK Parliament website: Political conduct of employees]
CHAPTER 12: CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE

(See also Civil Service Management Code, Chapter 4 - Conduct and discipline)

General principles

12.1. The following general principles should be observed by all staff:

(1) they are expected to give their undivided allegiance to the House at all times when the House has a claim on their services and to cooperate with all reasonable requests made of them;

(2) they are expected not to engage in private activities which might bring discredit upon the House;

(3) they should not put their private interests before their official duty, neither should they put themselves in a position where their duty and private interests conflict, and they should not make use of their official position to further those interests;

(4) staff of the House are required to carry out their duties with complete political impartiality. For political activities see paragraph 12.22.

Political activities

12.22. Housekeepers and the catering staff of the Refreshment Department are free to take part in political activities outside the House. All other staff wishing to engage in national or local political activities, or to express views on such matters in letters to the press, or in books, articles, or leaflets, must consult the Director of Human Resources. The House of Lords Policy on political impartiality and safeguarding official information is set out in Appendix L.
APPENDIX L: POLICY ON POLITICAL IMPARTIALITY AND SAFEGUARDING OFFICIAL INFORMATION

(Paragraph 12.22)

Political Impartiality

The core tasks of the House of Lords service include supporting the House and its committees and supporting individual Members of Parliament. Members are entitled to expect that these services are provided with complete political impartiality and that briefing and advice are not influenced by the personal political opinions of individual members of staff.

Staff who advise Members must be, and appear to be, impartial. They should not, for instance, be a member of a political party. When the impartiality of such staff is compromised, not only may their ability to do their job be impaired, but the reputation of the House of Lords service may also suffer.

Impartiality is not an important requirement for all staff. Refreshment Department catering grade staff and Black Rod's Department housekeepers may take part in political activities without restriction.

If you work in any other area you will be subject to restrictions if you seek to take part in any political activity. You must obtain the permission of the Director of Human Resources before engaging in such activity.

Political activity includes:

At National Level:

(a) Holding office in a party political organisation

(b) Speaking in public on matters of national political controversy

(c) Expressing views on political matters in letters to the press, or in books, articles or leaflets

(d) Being a candidate for Parliament (including the European Parliament)

(e) Canvassing on behalf of a candidate for Parliament or a political party

(f) Attending conferences or functions arranged by party political organisations

(g) Being involved in a national referendum campaign

At Local Level:

(a) Speaking in public on matters of local political controversy

(b) Expressing views on political matters in letters to the press, or in books, articles or

leaflets

(c) Being a candidate or canvassing on behalf of a candidate for election to a local authority.

This is not a definitive list.

In addition, you must obtain the permission of the Director of Human Resources, if you wish to take part in any activity in which, irrespective of your intention, it is likely that you will be brought prominently to public notice in a matter of political controversy.

If you apply for permission to engage in a political activity the Director of Human Resources will consider:

(a) The extent to which your impartiality may be compromised by the activity, or by your participation in the activity being brought prominently to public notice.

(b) The extent to which impartiality is a requirement of your post.

(c) The possible impact on the House of Lords service of your impartiality being compromised.

If the Director of Human Resources refuses your request to engage in a political activity you will be given a full explanation of the reasons for the decision. If you are given permission to engage in a political activity you must not do so in a manner from which it could reasonably be assumed that you were acting as a representative of the House of Lords.

Impartiality is a fundamental requirement for the following staff:

(a) Heads of Office and members of staff in SCS bands

(b) Staff who are in regular direct contact with Members in support of the business of the

House and its committees

(c) Staff who provide information, briefing or advice to Members on subjects of political

significance.

Staff in these categories will not generally be given permission to take part in any political activity. The Director of Human Resources will, however, assess any applications from staff in these groups against the criteria listed above. Where staff can demonstrate that their ability to give impartial service will not be compromised, permission can be granted.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - August 2007

7 August 2007

The RT. Honourable Baroness Hayman

The Speaker – House of Lords

Parliament of the United Kingdom

London

SW 1A OPW

Dear Madam Speaker

POLITICAL RIGHTS OF STAFF MEMBERS

Most of the practices and rules of the South African Parliament were borrowed for the UK Parliament. I [1] was however surprised to learn that despite being the founder of parliamentary democracy in the 1200s, the UK Parliament or 'Mother of Parliaments' suppresses the political rights of certain staff members. In this letter, I wish to explore this undemocratic practice.

According to the handbook of the staff members of the House of Lords, staff members should support the House, its committees and the individual Member of Parliament. This support should be politically [2] impartial, i.e. it should not be influenced by the political opinions of individual staff members.

According to the staff book [3];

1. Staff members who advise Members must be, and 'appear to be' [4], impartial. They should not, for instance, be a member of a political party. When impartiality is compromised, staff members' ability to do their job may be impaired, as well as the reputation of the House.

2. Impartiality is not an important requirement for all staff. Catering and housekeeper grade staff may take part in political activities without restriction.

3. Political activities include;

(a) Holding office in a part political organisation,

(b) Speaking in public on matters of national political controversy,

(c) Expressing views on political matters in letters to the press, in books, articles or leaflets,

(d) Being a candidate for a local authority or Parliament (UK or European)

(e) Canvassing on behalf of a candidate for Parliament or a political party,

(f) Attending conferences of functions arranged by party political organisations,

(g) Being involved in a national referendum campaign.

4. Staff must obtain the permission of the Head of Human Resources, before engaging in such activity and where staff can demonstrate that their ability to give impartial service will not be compromised, permission can be granted.

The South African Constitution (Act 108, 1996) guarantees universal adult suffrage, regular elections and the political rights [5] of South African citizens. These rights are also guaranteed in other democracies, like the UK, even though the UK does not have a constitution.

UK Parliamentary staff members are expected to vote in elections, like other patriotic citizens to legitimize and strengthen the electoral system, specifically and democracy, in general. These staff members make partial (partisan) choices, when they vote, but as democrats they accept the results, even if their candidate loses. After the elections, these professionals return to the workplace to make their country great, in a professional, ethical and non-partisan manner.

Staff members are however treated unequally [6], because some can be politically active [7], whilst others cannot. The argument is that the latter group works with Members of Parliament and 'political virginity' is required to maintain impartiality in the workplace [Rule 1]. I agree that impartiality in the workplace is a prerequisite, because all Members should receive the same professional and unbiased service, so that they can execute their duties effectively, but political virginity? The UK Parliament, as the employer, cannot extend its workplace rules into the private sphere of the staff member, because the staff member is firstly a citizen, with rights like all other citizens in a democracy and then a worker of the UK Parliament.

Linking 'political impartiality' with 'political inactivity' (rules 1 & 2) is irrational, because patriotism, loyalty and ethical (professional) behaviour cannot be wrung out of citizens (i.e. staff members) by denying them their political rights [8]! This policy will [9] make all your staff members unpatriotic, political apathetic and disinterested in elections and democracy.

Furthermore, if your argument s followed to its illogical conclusion, then;

\- white staff members cannot serve black Members, because they would be partial,

\- young staff members cannot serve old Members, because they would be partial,

\- male staff members cannot serve female Members, because they would be partial,

\- Christian staff members cannot serve Muslim Members, because they would be partial [10],

I would implore you to re-evaluate this undemocratic policy, because exclusion and suppression do not belong in a democracy, especially in a democracy as matured as yours.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. I was employed by the South African National Parliament for almost 10 years, but was dismissed when I unknowingly contravened a policy prohibited candidature for statutory bodies. See enclosed letters for details.

2. In my opinion, it should be impartial, period!

3. My numbering. These rules also apply to the 'House of Commons'.

4. See note 10 below.

5. Section 19(1) - Every citizen is free to make political choices which include the right;

(a) to form a political party

(b) to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for a political party and

(c) to campaign for a political party or cause.

Section 19(3) - Every citizen has the right –

(a) To vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution, and to do in secret; and

(b) To stand for public office and, if elected to hold office.

6. This would be viewed as unconstitutional, illegal and unfair in the South African context, because the Constitution guarantees 'the right to equality' in section 9. It is also illegal and unfair in the UK context, in terms of the common law and democratic practices!

7. That is 'more than voting' (see rule 3, above).

8. This was attempted in South Africa with the system of Apartheid, but it failed miserably and was labeled a 'Crime against Humanity'. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle stated that 'Man is a political animal', because all s us carry baggage – we are all subjective, but as professionals and ethicists, parliamentary officials keep their opinions (political and personal!) for themselves in the workplace. As citizens in a (participatory) democracy, they should be free to participate maximally, so as to deepen democracy.

9. It probably has already.

10. How will these staff members 'appear to be impartial'? Must they change their appearance, sex, age and/or religion? Is diversity not the fundamental pillar of democracy – something to celebrate and not to be suppressed?

\-----------------------------------------------------------

SPEAKER'S OFFICE

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Parliament of the United Kingdom

London SW 1A 0AA

l4 August 2007

Dear Mr Campher

Mr Speaker has me to thank you for your letter of 7 August 2007 and to reply on his behalf.

The Speaker has asked me to explain that, although this is a subject about which you feel deeply concerned, the nature of his position requires him to be politically impartial. As a result, he cannot comment on the matters which you raise.

Mr Speaker is also unable to comment on the South African constitution nor on the House of Lords Staff Handbook, which is a matter for the Human Resources, Section of the House of Lords.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Peter Barratt

Assistant Secretary to the Speaker

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

(tellus@sundaytimes.co.za)

28 August 2007

The Editor

Sunday Times

PO Box 1742

Saxonwold

2132

Dear Sir

THE ASMAL REPORT

I was the Committee Secretary of Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Defence for almost ten years. I was 'resigned' in March 2006, because I unknowingly contravened an Apartheid-era workplace policy, when I stood as an independent ward councillor in the local government elections. The policy stated: 'If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment'.

The CCMA found that it was a dismissal, because 'resignation' is an act of the employee, not employer. The CCMA did not rule on the unconstitutionality (in my opinion) of the policy – "Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office" [Section 19(3)(b) – Constitution (Act 108, 1996)]. I cannot pursue it on my own, because the courts are inaccessible – 'no money, no justice'.

Prof Asmal, MP was my committee chairperson from August 2004 to September 2005, when he resigned as chairperson to head FATAF (United Nations' anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism body), without being remunerated. Prof Asmal (ANC) and Mr VB Ndlovu (IFP) were the only MPs that wrote letters to Parliament's bosses on my behalf – the others were too scared (ANC) or unprincipled (opposition parties). Prof Asmal went where other (ANC) MPs feared to tread, because as he once told me: "I have nothing to prove [no ladder to climb]." After all, he is a veteran of the anti-Apartheid struggle, was a Cabinet Minister and chairperson of the Cabinet subcommittee (NCACC) that approved armament exports, chaired (still chairs) the ANC's disciplinary committee, apart from his involvement in numerous other local and international bodies. He, as a human-rights lawyer and anti-Apartheid activist, was also instrumental in the writing of South Africa's progressive constitution, which protects and promotes our human rights.

Prof Asmal was a real taskmaster: at times difficult to please, other times the patient teacher. I, then with an honours degree in Philosophy ('love of knowledge') and now an M.Phil in Ethics, was a willing and privileged student, and learned quite a lot from 'the headmaster' (as he jokingly used to call himself) and so did some of the committee members, those willing to grow. His vigour, attention to detail and work-ethic are illustrated by the tabling of twenty-two recommendations by the Portfolio Committee (basically Prof) after one particular fact-finding visit to a military institution. At that stage, it was unheard of.

As such, the almost one hundred findings of the 'Ad hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter Nine and Associated Institutions' came as no surprise to me. I fully support the findings and recommendations, because (a) Parliament, which establishes and funds these institutions for the benefit of the South African People, does not support them against the executive, (b) some of these institutions, like the Youth Commission, are gravy trains and (c) access by the public to these institutions should be streamlined.

I am however, of the opinion, that despite the brilliant and courageous work of the Prof and his committee, that the report will gather dust until an unselfish, ethical and people-centered government is elected into office by the South African People. The report steps on too many toes that are lined with gravy. These so-called 'honourable' Members are in Parliament, not for the electorate, but for themselves; just watch the flurry over the next two weeks when they crisscross the National Assembly floor for 'greener' pastures, during the floor-crossing period.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* This letter was not published in the newspaper.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

30 August 2007

Mr J Kollapen

The Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission

Private Bag X 2700

Houghton

2041

Dear Mr Kollapen

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

Thank you very much for your letter (ref. A23/04/2007), dated 20 April 2007, in which you upheld my appeal. You have referred my case back to the Western Cape Provincial Office and the Head of Legal Services of the Commission for further investigation, which I appreciate.

This policy [1] is unconstitutional (in my opinion), because it undermines the political and economic rights [2] of the approximately 3400 employees of the National Parliament and the nine Provincial Legislatures [3]. A new policy [4] came into effect in July 2006, after it was pointed out that staff members were serving their communities through statutory bodies, like School Governing Bodies and Community Policing Forums.

This indicated that the policy was generally unknown. The old and new policies prohibit 'testing the water' and effectively terminate the employment relationship once the employee becomes a candidate, even though candidacy is no guarantee that the employee will become an elected official. As such, it denies the employee his/her political and economic rights, which are unlawful in a constitutional democracy, like the New South Africa.

I need your intervention, because more than four months and ten days have elapsed and I have not yet received any feedback from the provincial official or the legal department of the Commission.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. "If a staff member accept nomination as candidate for an election or appointment as member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resign voluntarily from the Service with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment."

2. These rights are enshrined in chapter 2 of the Constitution (Act 108, 1996)

3. The legislatures have similar policies in place to prevent employees from exercising their human rights.

4. Article 8(4)(b) of the 'Employee Conduct' booklet (National Parliament): 'An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.' [This policy does not differ substantively from the old policy]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - September 2007

21 September 2007

Ms B Mbete, MP

Speaker of the National Assembly

Parliament (RSA)

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Madam Speaker

APPRECIATION

I wish to indicate my appreciation for your intervention to ensure that I receive my pension. You and your counterpart in the National Council of Provinces, as the presiding officers approved the pension pay-out. My pension was paid into my bank account on 16 September 2007 – that is one year and six days after I was dismissed on 6 March 2006 and 11 months and 16 days since requesting my pension on 2 October 2006.

I wish to raise three concerns that I have, not as a former Parliamentary official, but as a law-abiding and taxpaying citizen;

(1) Gratitude for approving pension

(2) Overruled Secretary (HR)

(3) Concerns:

(i) Policy unknown to employees

(ii) Policy terminology (candidature = 'resign', but CCMA stated dismissal)

(iii) Policy is unconstitutional (Parliament warned on 10 May 2006)

The said policy is:

If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a

member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the

(Parliamentary) Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he

accepts such nomination or appointment.

The Service refused me a pension, even though I satisfied the criteria, that is:

(a) I was dismissed and

(b) I have more than 10 pensionable years.

Mr VB Ndlovu, MP, on my behalf petitioned Parliament (National Assembly), via the Secretary to Parliament, on 24 January 2007 to instruct the Parliamentary Service to pay my pension out.

The Secretary, however stated in the attached letter, dated 16 February 2007, that the matter was not a 'special petition', "as defined in the National Assembly rules". The reasoning is vague, unprofessional and unconvincing – at least the Secretary could have quoted the specific rule on which he, as a Parliamentary official, based his procedural guidance to a Member of Parliament.

According to Rule 315(a) [1], the Speaker should refer a petition that is of a special (or specific) nature to the Standing Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, whilst a petition of a general nature should be referred to the relevant portfolio or appropriate committee, according to Rule 315(b). This is the only definitive reference to 'special' petitions in the rules - other than that I do not know what is meant by "as defined in the National Assembly rules".

I would appreciate your urgent intervention, so that this unfortunate matter can be laid to rest.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* The Speaker did not respond to this letter.]

NOTE:

1. Rules of the National Assembly – January 2004, 4th Edition

\-----------------------------------------------------------

26 September 2007

The Chief Investigator

Office of the Public Protector

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Dear Advocate

COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE

Someone from the Office of the Public Protector [1] telephoned me on Thursday, 20 September 2007 to establish whether I (a) received my pension and (b) was satisfied with the service of the Office [2]. The National Treasury informed the Office that the electronic transfer of the pension lump-sum into my banking account was made on 16 September 2007.

I responded positively to the deposit and indicated my satisfaction with and appreciation for the work of the Office. I also requested additional information, which related to the fact that when I requested my pension from Parliament, Parliament was of the opinion that I did not qualify [3], but it made a 180º degree turn when your Office approached it.

Your Office indicated, telephonically, on 20 September, that it received the same negative response from the Parliamentary Administration, when you initially intervened on my behalf. The Office then approached the Presiding Officers of Parliament [4], because they are the political and therefore final authority that approves the payment of pensions to employees, amongst other things. The Presiding Officers seemingly 'convinced' the Parliamentary Administration, which is headed by the Secretary to Parliament, to recommend the payment of my pension, so that they could approve it.

I appreciated this oral information, but would appreciate a copy of the correspondence between the Office of the Public Protector and Parliament, to fully understand Parliament's turn-about turn.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my appreciation for your assistance and professionalism in concluding this matter, without fear, favour or prejudice.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. I did not get her name due to the bad cellular telephone reception.

2. I registered this case with the Office of the Public Protector on 8 December 2006.

3. According to Parliament, I resigned, which disqualified me from receiving a pension. The CCMA, a statutory mediation and arbitration labour body, however found that I was fired and therefore eligible for a pension.

4. They are the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - October 2007

BELVUE PRIMARY SCHOOL

PO Box 10021

Belhar

7507

31October 2007

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

It is hereby confirmed that Mr G Campher, of Belhar was elected to the School Governing Body (SGB) of the above-mentioned school to represent parents for the period September 2000 to June 2002. He was also secretary of the governing body for the said period.

Mr Campher executed his tasks as brilliantly as representative of the learners' parents and a secretary of the governing body.

(signed)

Mr C Davids

Principal

* I have been contravening the 'voluntary resignation policy' of Parliament, unknowingly since September 2000! And so did many other colleagues, who also served on SGBs.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 7

**Dismissal - January 2008**

'What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works?'

James (The Book of James 2:14)

2 January 2008

Prof K Asmal, MP

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Prof Asmal

THE RIGHT TO STAND FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

I wish to congratulate you, as the former chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Chapter Nine and Related Institutions, and the committee for the comprehensive report that you tabled in the National Assembly on 31 July 2007. The institutions you reviewed are imperative to support and promote our young democracy, in that they allow citizens to assert their fundamental rights, especially those that do not have the resources to access the courts. I need your assistance to bring a matter, with regard to one of these institutions, to the attention of the National Assembly.

As you know I was 'voluntarily resigned' from the Parliamentary Service for my candidature in the 2006 Local Government elections. The CCMA [1], however found that I was dismissed, but when I applied for my pension [2], Parliament reverted to its original position (i.e. that I resigned) and refused payment [3]. I took the matter to the Public Protector (a Chapter Nine body), which eventually persuaded/convinced Parliament to pay my pension [4] (see enclosed letters).

I also approached the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to investigate the constitutionality of Parliament's 'resignation' policy. It indicated on 20 April 2007 that I had a prima facie case, but since then did not communicate with me again [5]. I would appreciate it if you, as the former chair of the above-mentioned committee, ANC human rights activist and MP of integrity [6], could pursue this matter on my behalf, because the SAHRC, as a Chapter Nine institution has to account to the Assembly in terms of the Constitution (for its dereliction of duty, in this case).

Attached, please find supporting documents [7].

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Established in terms of section 112 of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995).

2. According to the rules of the pension scheme, an employee that resigns receive nothing, but an employee, with 10 years pensionable service, is eligible for a pension, if he/she is dismissed.

3. Letter to Parliament (2 Oct 2006), Parliament's response (11 Oct 2006)

4. This proves that these bodies do assist the average person to assert his/her their rights, by executing their constitutional duty without fear, favour or prejudice.

5. There was also no response to my last letter, dated 30 August 2007.

6. You are one of a few MPs that honour their oath of office, which you took in 1994, 1999 & 2004 – "I, AK Asmal, swear that I will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa and will obey, respect and uphold the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic; and solemnly promise to perform my functions as a member of the National Assembly to the best of my abilities." (Schedule 2, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996)

7. Letters to SAHRC (18 Sept 2006, 7 Nov 2006 & 30 Aug 2007), SAHRC letter (20 Apr 2007), Essay – "Who guards the guardian in a constitutional democracy?"

ATTACHMENT:

WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIAN IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY?

In 'The Republic', Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, argued that future rulers or guardians (philosopher-kings) should be trained for public life from an early age. He stated that "under all circumstances [the guardians should] hold fast the belief that the thing that is best for the community, is the thing for them to do" (Nettleship 1964:132). As such, the guardians should not exhibit self-interest, because they were the servants of the people. In an imperfect world, this raises a fundamental question; 'If the guardians guard the people, who guard the guardians (and the guardians' guardian)?'

In this essay, I will argue that control over the guardians is unfortunately not internal, i.e. philosophical training, as in Plato's utopia, but external, through the modern, constitutional institutions that have to promote and support democracy – the stronger these institutions, the stronger the democracy. In constitutional democracies, these institutions include Parliament and other organs of state, but the most important institution is a living constitution. South Africa's constitution [1], which guarantees fundamental human rights, is the tree that is nourished by the blood of the millions of people that suffered and died under colonialism and apartheid.

Our Constitution is the product of struggle and it will be a travesty of justice, if South Africa becomes an 'animal farm' [2]. I will show that constitutional democracy is value-and-principle driven and that it takes public servants [3] of integrity to stay on the straight and narrow, so that the Constitution comes to life.

DEMOCRACY

'How a democratic state deals with the weak, marginalised and voiceless indicates the democratic, civil and ethical character of that state.' This is a well-known adage used by academics and politicians, but to the voiceless millions, it is mere words. I believe that one has to take a step back and conceptually clarify 'democracy' to fully appreciate the above-mentioned statement.

According to Flew (1983:88), the concept has three interpretations.

1. For the people – 'the regime is democratic in that the rulers or guardians are in fact acting effectively in the interest of the people (those being governed)'

2. By the people – 'the regime is democratic, when the institutions and procedures of government express the actual will of the people'

3. Of the people – 'the regime is democratic when the rulers can be recruited from any social background, because the people are equal.'

In the bad old days, the absolute monarch was the ruler (executive authority), lawmaker (legislature) and punisher (judiciary). In modern democracies the power of the state is separate and distinct, with different 'checks-and-balances' in the system, so that 'everybody is watching everybody'. The legislature or Parliament is supposed to be the main watchdog, but it was not the case in Apartheid [4] South Africa, because democracy was restricted to the white minority. Parliament was in fact an accomplice (with the executive) in the oppression of the black majority, because as a sovereign entity it made laws that the judiciary could only challenge on legal, not ethical grounds.

The rights of the apartheid state superseded the rights of the individual. For example, the 'Group Areas Act' was legal, but not ethical. The act restricted groups or races [5] to their 'own' areas. If Whites wanted more land or prized land, like District Six in central Cape Town, they would merely declare the area 'white' and legally forced the other group out – in this case the 'Coloureds'.

Nowadays, in constitutional democracies, like South Africa, where the constitution (and not Parliament) is supreme, Parliament is (or should be!) the main watchdog. It is assisted by certain organs of state to keep the powerful executive (guardian) on a short lease. These state organs are independent of Parliament and the executive, but they account to Parliament. However, this process of oversight and accountability has two weaknesses:

1. The South African Parliament is toothless, because it can only make recommendations to the executive to improve matters.

2. Parliament (supposedly) [6] guards the executive, but who guards Parliament?

THE REVIEW

If democracy is sometimes (or always?) used to serve a particular agenda, how do we ensure that the citizens benefit? In 2006 South Africa's young democracy was measured and weighed – the jury is still out. On 21 September, the National Assembly adopted a resolution to establish an ad hoc committee to review; (a) state institutions supporting constitutional democracy and (b) the Public Service Commission, which are established in terms of chapters nine and ten of the Constitution, respectively. Prof Kader Asmal, MP of the African National Congress (ANC), Parliament's majority party, was elected as the chairperson.

According to the committee's report, which was tabled in the Assembly on 31 July 2007;

"the general public should take a keen and active interest in the contents of the report, because the institutions reviewed were designed to protect, promote and enhance the rights of citizens. The institutions are expected to assist people to vindicate their rights. The effectiveness and efficiency with which the institutions discharge their duties have direct bearing on the quality of life of all South Africans, but particularly the poor, marginalised, rural and previously disenfranchised" (Parliament 2007:v – my emphasis).

The emphasis, above, underlines the seemingly selectiveness of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) [7] in executing its constitutional mandate. I was 'voluntarily resigned'[8] from the Parliamentary Service in March 2006 for my candidature [9] in the 2006 Local Government elections, but the CCMA [10] found that I was dismissed. Parliament accepted the outcome and paid compensation (two months salary). However, when I applied for my pension [11], Parliament reverted to its original position (i.e. that I resigned) and refused payment.

I took the matter to the Public Protector (another Chapter 9 body), which eventually persuaded/convinced Parliament to pay my pension [12]. I wish to congratulate the Public Protector, which executed its mandate "without fear, favour or prejudice" - section 181(2) of the Constitution. I approached the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) in November 2006 to investigate the constitutionality of Parliament's 'resignation' policy. On 20 April 2007, it indicated that I had a prima facie case, but since then the matter went quiet [13].

The independence and powers of these chapter 9 institutions are guaranteed by the Constitution, so that they can act on behalf of those, who cannot gain access to the courts, to enforce their rights. The Constitution obliges these institutions to report to the National Assembly [14] on their activities and the performance of their functions at least once a year, to satisfy MPs that they execute their constitutional mandate. The Assembly is the guardian of these institutions and should pursue this dereliction of duty of the SAHRC. This is imperative, especially in this case, where the Parliamentary Service [15] is under investigation.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION

According to Botha (1998:67), "the presumption; harsh, unjust or unreasonable results are not intended by legislation, was frequently refuted in Apartheid South Africa", because the rights of the state superseded those of the individual. This presumption is now fully entrenched in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which meant that for the first time in South Africa, the rights of the citizen prevail over the interests of the state, limited only in those instances provided for in section 36.

The Bill of Right placed certain responsibilities on the state, which had to become; "the agent of empowerment to ensure that people do not remain helpless and disempowered. In the modern state, preventing people from enjoying opportunities and benefits may be a more serious infringement of fundamental rights than government abuse of power. In terms of the preamble, the Constitution is the driving force that serves to create a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights, as well as to improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of every person" (Botha 1998:145 – my emphasis).

My emphasis above highlights the fact that our Constitution clearly places a premium on the qualitative development of the citizen. This convinced me that 'anything was possible' [16] in the new South Africa and that I could pursue my dream to represent my community in the City Council of Cape Town. Instead of supporting me, Parliament, which was my employer and more importantly 'a guardian of democracy', dismissed me.

In my opinion, the 'resignation' workplace policy of Parliament is not only unconstitutional [17], but also technically deficient, because it ignores the above-mentioned value-driven presumption. A new version of the policy was adopted in July 2006, but substantively, it remained the same.

Old policy (Date approved- unknown! [18])

If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he or she is regarded as having resigned from the (Parliamentary) Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.

New policy (Date approved- June 2006)

An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.

My initial problem with the policy remains; it prohibits an employee of Parliament to stand for [19] public office. In addition, even though the CCMA found that the wording ('voluntary resignation') of the old policy was technically a dismissal; Parliament retained the wording in the new policy. The policy effectively says; 'If an employee stands for election as a Member of the Assembly [etc], he/she will be dismissed!' This clearly violates the right of a South African citizen to stand for public office, which is unconstitutional and undemocratic, in terms of the above-mentioned third interpretation of 'democracy' – of the people.

LEGACY OF FREEDOM

In any political system, there should be political will to execute the policies and programmes of the government, but also the laws of the countries. Sometimes there is a conflict between the two, which necessitates the leadership of statesmen (philosopher-kings) and not politicians. In a crime-ridden country, like South Africa, it places a duty on the government to lead by example, especially if they are the originator of the law or policy.

South Africa underwent a bloodless revolution, because of a negotiated political settlement, which was mainly driven by the ANC. The ANC's inputs into the Constitution can be traced back to several documents, one of which is the Africans' Claims in South Africa, which the ANC adopted in December 1943. The document, which asserted a range of human rights, "was in essence a response to the proposals of the USA and Great Britain for a new world order after the Second World War" (Asmal 2005:1).

According to Asmal (2005:17) the first demand of the Bill of Rights drafted by the Africans' Claim committee was;

"We, the African people in the Union of South Africa, urgently demand the granting of full citizenship rights such as are enjoyed by all Europeans in South Africa. We demand:

1. Abolition of political discrimination based on race, such as the Cape 'Native' franchise and the Native Representative Council under Representative Natives Act, and the extension to all adults, regardless of race of the right to vote and be elected to parliament, provincial councils and other representative institutions" (my emphasis).

In 1955, the broad church of anti-colonial and anti-apartheid groupings (including the ANC) met in Kliptown (Johannesburg), as the Congress of the People, to adopt the 'Freedom Charter', which became the most important policy document of the liberation forces. The famous first article of the 'Freedom Charter' is:

"1. The People Shall Govern

Every man and woman shall have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate for all bodies which make laws. All the people shall be entitled to take part in the administration of the country" (Asmal 2005:60 – my emphasis).

The 'Freedom Charter' was a pioneering document, because it;

"anticipated by a decade the two great international conventions on human rights adopted by the United Nations - the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Convention on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (1966)" (Asmal 2005:53).

The 'Freedom Charter' was also revolutionary, because it emphasized the importance and equality of all human rights - political, social and economic. However, as we have seen above, Parliament has a policy, which dismisses its employees when they merely 'test the waters' for public office. Being a candidate is no guarantee that the individual will be elected or appointed to public office, which means that his/her economic right (having a job) is violated along with his/her political right to stand for public office. The ANC, whilst it was a liberation organisation, fought for these human rights, but it seems once it took power, these rights of individuals and groups were systematically violated, if they critiqued or opposed the ANC.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate the above-mentioned adage; 'How society deals with its marginalised and voiceless indicates the level of democracy and humanity in that society.' The hallmark of a democracy is that alternative views are not only tolerated and respected, but actively supported, because without diversity [20], there cannot be 'government for the people, by the people and of the people'.

The ANC has a two-thirds parliamentary majority and the danger is that alternative voices are ignored or squashed. These voices can be individuals (like myself), smaller political parties or the independent media. In our constitutional democracy, we need to turn from the adage; 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' to 'with power comes responsibility'. One would have thought that the rulers of a country, like South Africa, which rose from the ashes of apartheid, would apply the Constitution to the letter (and in spirit), so that we can truly say; 'never again' [21]. It did not happen, because these rulers are not trained philosopher-kings.

This necessitates the strengthening of institutions that promote democracy, so that they are independent, well-resourced and effective, because the promotion of democracy should not be dependent on the 'goodwill' of the rulers. Citizens should be vigilant at all times, because democracy was hard-won in South Africa and politicians with short-term goals can systematically erode the gains that were made in the last thirteen years of this constitutional democracy. The answer to the original question ('Who guards the guardians?') is; 'the citizens', because in a representative democracy, the institutions of state merely represent the general will of the people. Let the People govern!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asmal, K (ed) with Chidester, D and Lubisi, C. 2005. Legacy of Freedom: The ANC's Human Rights Tradition. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Botha, C.1998. Statutory Interpretation: An introduction for students. Cape Town: Juta & Co.

Flew, A. 1983 (2nd ed). A dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books.

Constitutional Assembly. 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Nettleship, RL, 1964. Lectures on the Republic of Plato. London: MacMillan & Co.Ltd.

Parliament. 2007. Report on Chapter 9 and Associated Institutions. Cape Town: Parliament

Authored by:

(signed)

G CAMPHER

(2 January 2008)

[* Prof Asmal did not respond.]

NOTES:

1. Hereafter Constitution, i.e. Act 108 of 1996

2. It refers to George Orwell's book in which the farm animals revolted against the cruel humans. However, after a while the leaders (pigs) enjoyed the 'fat cat' life and became the new oppressor.

3. Public servants in the wider sense, i.e. not only people employed under the Public Servants Act, but all people employed by the state.

4. 'Apartheid' is an Afrikaans word for the ideology of the 'separate development' of the different racial groups.

5. Whites was 13% of the population, but had 87% of the land.

6. In the Westminster Parliamentary system, like the UK and South Africa, the majority party in Parliament, forms the government. The MPs are then motivated to tow-the-party line to ensure promotion to the cabinet, despite their constitutional duty to represent the views of the electorate in the House.

7. The SAHRC is a 'Chapter 9' body (or constitutional body), established to protect, defend and advance human rights in South Africa.

8. This is the term used in the policy – see the full version of the policy on page 4.

9. I stood as an independent candidate. Another colleague, who stood for the 'Independent Democrats', was also dismissed.

10.Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Established in terms of section 112 of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995).

11. According to the rules of the pension scheme, an employee who resigns receives nothing, but an employee, with 10 years pensionable service, is eligible for a pension, if he/she is dismissed.

12. This proves that these bodies do assist the average person to assert his/her their rights, by executing their constitutional duty without fear, favour or prejudice.

13. There was also no response to my last letter, dated 30 August 2007.

14. The 400 MPs of the Assembly represents the 45 million South African citizens, so in effect the institutions report to the citizens.

15. The Parliamentary Service refers to the staff of the institution and excludes the MPs.

16. The slogan of 'Tourism South Africa' is 'a land of possibilities' – for tourists maybe, but seemingly not for citizens that oppose the ANC.

17. 'Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.' (Section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution).

18. During the CCMA hearing on 28 August 2006, the Head of Labour Relations (Mr Sean September) could not provide the date, when the policy was approved.

19. I believe that the employee should be allowed to stand (be a candidate) for public office, but once successful he/she has to resign his/her job, to avoid a conflict of interest. This would be constitutional and ethical. Incidentally, the Hatch Act allows employees of the Congress of the USA to 'test the waters' (standing as a candidate), but they have to resign as employees of Congress, if they are elected into office.

20. This is reflected in the slogan on South Africa's coat-of-arms; 'Unity in diversity'.

21. "Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another."

These words were spoken by former Pres. Nelson Mandela, when he was released after 27 years in prison.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

21 January 2008

Ms B Mbete, MP

Speaker of the National Assembly

Parliament (RSA)

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Madam Speaker

NON-PERFORMING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

We, as South Africans, will celebrate the 14th Human Rights day in two months, to the day, on the 21st of March, but I am saddened to request your assistance to bring a grave matter to the attention of the National Assembly. I raised this matter with Prof Asmal, a member of the Assembly, in writing on 2 January 2008 (see annexure), but did not receive any response.

The matter concerns the reluctance of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to investigate an infringement of my constitutional rights, even though it believes that a prima facie case exists (see annexure, dated 20 Apr 2007). The SAHRC, which is accountable to the Assembly, in terms of the Constitution, has to account for not executing its constitutional mandate as stipulated in section 184(2);

Section l84(2) - The SAHRC has the powers...:

(a) to investigate and to report on the observance of human rights,

(b) to take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated.

According to the SAHRC's website "Human Rights Day (21March) is the day set aside to celebrate human rights and to remind all South Africans of their human rights" (see annexure). I would appreciate it if the National Assembly could remind the SAHRC of the importance of human rights and the reason for its existence as a constitutional body.

Thanking you in advance

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

c.c : Mr MJ Mahlangu: Chairperson-National Council of Provinces

[* The Speaker did not respond.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Mr MJ Mahlangu, MP

Chairperson – National Council of Provinces

Parliament (RSA)

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

21 January 2008

Dear Honourable Chairperson

NON-PERFORMING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Enclosed, please find correspondence to the Speaker of the National Assembly with regard to the non-performance of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). Even though the SAHRC is not accountable to the Council (in terms of the Constitution), the course of action of the Speaker in this matter will reflect on both Houses of Parliament, as an institution that represents the needs, wants and dreams of the South African People.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* The Chairperson did not respond.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The Parliamentary Office of Prof. Kader Asmal, MP

25 January 2008

Mr Jody Kollapen

Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission

Private Bag X2700

Houghton

2041

Dear Jody

Mr Gabriel Campher: Your Ref: A23/O4/2OO7

I refer to your letter of 20th April 2007 concerning Mr Campher's representation to the Commission, following his dismissal by officials of Parliament for standing as a candidate for the last local government elections.

You have been extremely helpful in pointing him in the right direction concerning his entitlement to pension, etc. The outstanding matter is the constitutionality of the legislation and practice which disqualifies officials for merely standing as candidates for certain offices. In fact, it had affected me in 1993 when I had resigned from the University after I had been selected as an ANC candidate for the first democratic elections.

In your letter to Mr Campher, you referred to the possible testing of the law which permits such dismissals. Mr Campher has tried to remind your office of the pursuit of such an action.

You 'confirmed that the Legal Services Office of the Western Cape Provincial office of the commission should proceed to do so'.

There is a degree of urgency about this matter. Citizens have the right to stand for office, especially in national elections. It is acceptable that if they-are elected to certain full-time paid posts, they should vacate other employment. The present rule, extensively applied, violate the mere right to stand for office. In about six months time parties will be drawing up their lists for the elections to the National Assembly in 2009. Individuals may separately decide to do so.

In my view, the Commission should make urgent application to have this law struck down.

I regret that it has taken your Western Cape office nearly 10 months to do anything about his application. Could you jolt their memory, so that Mr Campher could be the appropriate applicant for an urgent reference to the Court?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Professor Kader Asmal, MP

cc – Mr Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

The Parliamentary Office of Prof. Kader Asmal, MP

29 January 2008

Mr Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

Professor Asmal is in receipt of your letters written to the SAHRC and has asked me to forward you a copy of the letter which he wrote to Mr Kollapen of the SAHRC.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Ms Rushni Sale

Personal Assistant to Professor Kader Asmal, MP

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - February 2008

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PO Box 3563

CAPE TOWN

8000

Telephone: (021) 426 2277

Facsimile: (021) 426 2875

Website: http://www.sahrc.org.za

Our Ref: WC/26/456-bs

4th February 2008

Mr J Phaweni

Manager: Policy Unit

Parliament (RSA)

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Phaweni

RE: COMPLAINT MR GABRIEL CAMPHER

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has received a complaint from the above-mentioned complainant in which the following is alleged:

The complainant stood as an independent ward counsellor in the recent local elections. At the time he was employed as a committee secretary in parliament. He was informed by his manager that he 'resigned voluntarily', because he contravened a policy which was unknown to him that states..."If a staff member accepts a nomination for election, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily".

The Legal department of the Commission has considered the complaint and determines that prima facie it may constitute a violation of the rights to section 19 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996.

We would like to request details and copy of the relevant parliamentary workplace policy, legislation OR practice which allegedly infringes on his constitutional right a set out in section 19(3) of the Bill of Rights.

Please send this information to us as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully

SAHRC – Western Cape

(signed)

Per: Anna Moore

Legal Intern (SAHRC)

(signed)

Per: Bahia Sterris

Legal Officer (SAHRC)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

PARLEMENT VAN SUID-AFRIKA

Labour Relations Unit

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Tel. +27 21 403 2559

11 February 2008

Via Facsimile:

South African Human Rights Commission

132 Adderley Street

Cape Town

8000

Attention: Anna Moore

Per telefax. (021) 426 2875

Dear Ms Moore

COMPLAINT: MR GABRIEL CAMPHER

Your letter dated 04 February 2008 and subsequent telephonic conversation with Adv September refers.

We confirm that Mr Campher referred the matter to the Constitutional Court.

Until this matter is finalised at the Constitutional Court, we are unable to respond to your query.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

Mr M Tabata

HR Practitioner: Employee Relations

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via Facsimile: 021- 423 8708 (Ph – 021 423 8644)

TO: ADV. G. PIENAAR

19 February 2008

Adv Gary Pienaar

Head of Office – Western Cape

Office of the Public Protector

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Dear Adv Pienaar

REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORD OF PUBLIC RECORD

A few weeks ago you phoned me after my second 'request for access to records of a public body', dated 5 January 2008.

You informed me that you forwarded my initial request to the head office in Johannesburg and that you were waiting for a progress report. You promised that you would phone again and you did, but I missed that call. I hereby wish to enquire formally about the progress of my matter.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

G CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail: 'Office of the Public Protector'

From: "Tinus Schutte"

To: "Gabriel Campher"

Cc: "Gary Pienaar"

Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:19 PM

FW: Your request for access to information

Dear Mr Campher

Further to Adv Pienaar's e-mail below, my apologies for taking so long to process your application.

The only outstanding step that remains before I can inform you of the outcome of your application, is for me to consult with the Public Protector in terms of section 7(2) of the Public Protector Act 1994. In terms of this provision I cannot give out copies of the correspondence unless the Public Protector so approves.

The Public Protector will be back in the office on Monday 25 February 2008, and I have already sent a memo through to his support staff with the request to bring the matter to his attention without delay on his return.

If the matter has not been finalized by coming Friday 29 February 2008, I shall inform you of progress made.

Your patience in awaiting our reply is much appreciated.

M Schutte

Deputy Information Officer

Office of the Public Protector

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\--- On Thu, 2/21/08, Gary Pienaar wrote:

From: Gary Pienaar

Subject: Your request for access to information

To: "Gabriel Campher"

Cc: "Alfred Lose"

Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 5:28 PM

Dear Mr Campher

I acknowledge receipt of your faxed progress enquiry in the above regard dated 19 February 2008. The delay in processing your request is sincerely regretted. As I am leaving the Office of the Public Protector at the end of this month, I have notified our national office of your progress enquiry, with the request that you are notified directly of the status of your initial request. For this purpose, I confirm your contact details.

Please note that as of next week, any further enquiries may be directed to Mr Alfred Lose, Senior Investigator in this Provincial office, to whom this email is copied.

Kind regards

Gary Pienaar (Adv)

Provincial Representative: Western Cape

Office of the Public Protector

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:57 AM

To: Gary Pienaar

Subject: Re: Your request for access to information

Dear Adv Pienaar

Thanks for your professionalism and good luck in your future endeavours.

G Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail: Office of the Public Protector

From: "Gary Pienaar" <Garyp@pprotect.org>

To: "Gabriel Campher"

Dear Mr Campher

Thank you most sincerely for your kind words.

Gary Pienaar

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: (021) 403 2595

Facsimile: (021) 461 9462

21 February 2008

Mr Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Gabriel

NON-PERFORMING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of 21 January 2008, regarding the above.

The matter will be brought to the attention of the Speaker for her consideration.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

MZUKISI S. HALU

Office of the Speaker

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - March 2008

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PO Box 3563

CAPE TOWN

8000

Telephone: (021) 426 2277

Facsimile: (021) 426 2875

Website: http://www.sahrc.org.za

Our Ref: WC/26/456-bs

20 March 2008

Mr Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

DECISION REGARDING YOUR COMPLAINT

We refer to your complaint as received by us.

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) confirms that we have liaised with parliament regarding your allegations.

We were informed by parliament (as per correspondence, dated 11 January 2008) that the matter is currently at the Constitutional Court.

The Commission in terms of our mandate is unable to deal with a matter that is sub judicae.

We have closed our file. You have the right to appeal against this decision not to take your case on. Should you wish to appeal, then you must do so within 45 days of receiving this letter by writing to;

The Chairperson, Mr Jody Kollapen, The South African Human Rights Commission, Private Bag X2700, Houghton, Johannesburg, 2000.

Yours faithfully

SAHRC – Western Cape

(signed)

Per: Anna Moore

Legal Intern (SAHRC)

(signed)

Per: Bahia Sterris

Legal Officer (SAHRC)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

25 March 2008

Prof J De Ville

Department of Law

University of the Western Cape

Private Bag X31

Bellville

7535

Dear Prof De Ville

THE CONSTITUTION – A LIVING DOCUMENT?

The last time I spoke to you with regard to my dismissal, on unconstitutional grounds (in my opinion), was in 2006. I would appreciate your guidance, because I have reached yet another cul-de-sac, following the many letters that I have written (enclosed).

I wrote to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), which seemingly is not exercising its function 'without fear, favour or prejudice', as per the Constitution. The National Assembly, which has to call the SAHRC to account, as per the Constitution, is also not helpful in this matter. I believe that the only option is to approach the Constitutional Court, via the High Court, but I need your expert opinion on this. Below is a summary of my case.

I was summarily and unexpectedly dismissed in March 2006, because I contravened a generally unknown policy of Parliament, when I stood as an independent candidate in the 2006 local government elections. Another employee, who stood for the ID, was also dismissed. In terms of Parliament's generally unknown policies and directives, my action was viewed as a 'voluntary resignation'! I took the matter to the CCMA, which found in my favour - it was a dismissal. Even then, Parliament refused to pay my pension and I had to take the matter to the Public Protector, who also found in my favour (see attached letters).

I also took this matter to the SAHRC, because I believed that my political rights were violated. This policy is, in my opinion unconstitutional, in terms of sections 19(3)(b) and 158(1)(b) of the Constitution. The SAHRC stated in April 2007 that I had a prima facie case, but that further investigation was needed. The SAHRC has however gone 'silent' and I believe that it stands in defiance of the Constitution, in terms of sections 181(2) and 184(2). Prof Kader Asmal (former MP and Cabinet Minister) has also written to them on my behalf, but no response, as yet (see attached letters).

Enclosed please find the relevant letters;

1. Letter (Mene to Campher, 6 Mar 2006)

2. Letter (Campher to Dingani, 7 Mar 2006)

3. Letter (Dingani to Campher, 3 May 2006)

4. Letter (Asmal to Dingani, 20 Mar 2006)

5. CCMA award (10 Sept 2006)

6. Letter (Tabata to Campher, 22 Sep 2006)

7. Letter (Campher to Parliament, 2 Oct 2007)

8. Letter (Parliament to Campher, 11 Oct 2007)

9. Letters (Campher to SAHRC; 18 Sep 2006, 07 Nov 2006, 30 Aug 2007)

10. Letter (SAHRC to Campher, 20 Apr 2007)

11. Letter (Campher to Asmal, 2 Jan 2008); Annexure – 'Who guards the guardians?'

12. Letter (Campher to Speaker, 21 Jan 2008)

13. Letter (Campher to NCoP Chair, 21 Jan 2008 – No response yet)

14. Letter (Prof Asmal to SAHRC, 25 Jan 2008)

15. Letter (Prof Asmal's Office to Campher, 29 Jan 2008)

16. Letter (Speaker's office to Campher, 21 Feb 2008)

17. Newspaper Article (Cape Times, 14 March 2006)

I wish to indicate my appreciation, in advance, for any guidance or assistance to bring this matter to its logical conclusion. If you need any further information, please contact me.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

(signed)

G CAMPHER

[* Prof De Ville did not respond.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - April 2008

Gen B Holomisa, MP

President: United Democratic Movement

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

9 April 2008

Dear General Holomisa

NON-PERFORMING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

I need your assistance to bring a grave matter to the attention of the National Assembly. It concerns the reluctance of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to investigate an infringement of my constitutional rights, even though it believes that a prima facie case exists. The SAHRC, which is accountable to the Assembly, in terms of the Constitution, has to account for not executing its constitutional mandate.

I also raised this matter with Prof Kader Asmal, MP, who wrote to the SAHRC, before he retired from Parliament. The result was a letter from the SAHRC, dated 20 March 2008, which I received on 7 April 2008! The SAHRC stated that the matter was sub judice, but (conveniently?) omitted the supporting letter, dated 11 Jan 2008, of Parliament. This is the first time that I, the aggrieved party, hear that the matter is before the Constitutional Court!

I also raised the matter with the Speaker of the Assembly on 21 January 2008, but received no substantive response, yet. I therefore request that you raise this matter with the honourable Speaker or directly in the Assembly. I believe that our young, constitutional democracy is under attack, because our Constitution, the basic law of this beautiful country, is not being defended without 'fear, favour or prejudice' [Note 1]. This creates doubt, apathy and frustration in the minds of the ordinary South African citizen.

The vision of Parliament is to be 'responsive to the needs of the People' [2]. Parliament is however not responsive to the needs of an ordinary Citizen, maybe it will be responsive to a senior Representative of the South African People, i.e. a Member of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa?

Enclosed please find;

1. Article (Cape Times, 14 Mar 2006)

2. Letter of SAHRC (20 Apr 2007)

3. Letter to Prof Asmal (2 Jan 2008)

4. Letter to Speaker (21 Jan 2008)

5. Letter of Prof Asmal to SAHRC (25 Jan 2008)

6. Acknowledgement from Speaker's Office (21 Feb 2008)

7. Letter from SAHRC (20 Mar 2008)

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* The recipient did not respond.]

NOTES:

1. John F Kennedy (former US President) once said: 'The rights of every man are diminished, when the rights of one man are threatened'.

2. Who are these People? People that voted for the ANC in 2004? I did, even though it should not make a difference. Ordinary taxpaying, law-abiding citizens? I am. People that love this country passionately? I do. Who are these People?

\-----------------------------------------------------------

11 April 2008

Ms A Moore

Legal lntern: SAHRC

PO Box 3563

Cape Town

8000

Dear Ms Moore

G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT – SUB JUDICE

Thanks for your letter, dated 20 March 2008 [note 1]. I was surprised to find out that I referred the matter to the Constitutional Court! As such, the matter is sub judice and the South African Human Rights Commissions (SAHRC) cannot proceed with the investigation.

I, however wish to inform you that the matter is not subjudice, because it is not in front of the Court. I wrote to the Court on 10 May 2006 [note 2] (see A1), but was advised on 29 May 2006 to pursue other avenues (see A2). Parliament was aware that my attempt was stillborn, because the Court never contacted it (the defendant!?), during this time. I believe that Parliament is deliberately taking the SAHRC on a wild goose chase, because it knows that it erred by violating a fundamental human right for which people, like former President Mandela, fought and went to jail for. In addition, it does not have the original and signed documents requested by the SAHRC on 4 February 2008. It is thus frustrating the SAHRC in the execution of its functions, which is a contravention of the Constitution [note 3] and a punishable offence, in terms of the SAHRC Act (Act 54 of 1994). I, as a citizen of a free and democratic South Africa, have been trying for years to access information with regard to the 'resignation policy', from the so-called People's Parliament, but to no avail [note 4]. The low-point is Parliament's unresponsive to the requirements of the Constitution [note 5], which is fleshed out in the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act 2 of 2000) (A11). I also approached a former senior Manager (see A9), with 36 years experience for information, but he never heard of the policy! This raises a serious question: Did the management and presiding officers of Parliament ever approve such a policy?

I should not have been surprised by the 'cat-and-mouse' games of Parliament, because they used the same tactics, when they were supposed to pay my pension. Parliament argued that I 'resigned voluntarily', when I contravened its generally unknown policy. The CCMA found that I did not resign, but was dismissed (see B1). Parliament accepted the CCMA verdict and executed the award, i.e. the payment of two months' salary (B2-a). When I requested my pension (B2-b) - in terms of the rules of the pension scheme, an employee is eligible for a pension, if he/she has (a) more than 10 years of pensionable service [note 6] and (b) been dismissed, they became uncooperative. Parliament's Labour Relations Unit thought that I had less than 10 years pensionable service and was quick to accept the CCMA award, but when they realized that I qualified for a pension, they returned to their pre-CCMA position (B2-c) and simply refused to pay my pension [note 7]!

I approached the Public Protector (B3) and he eventually found in my favour (B4). I received my pension in late 2007, after Parliament conceded (B5). Parliament's 'games' were not only unprofessional and unethical, but also detrimental to the Constitution and Parliament, as an institution, which is supposedly the epitome of democracy and good governance.

Enclosed, please find:

A1 - Letter to the Constitutional Court (10 May 2006)

A2 - Response from the Constitutional Court (29 May 2006)

A3 - E-mails to & from Mr September, Labour Relations Manager (29 & 30 Aug 2006)

A4 - Letter to Mr Dingani, Secretary to Parliament (11 Sept 2006) [No response]

A5 - Letter to Mr Phaweni, Policy Unit Manager (6 Dec 2006) [No response]

A6 - Letter to Ms Mene, Manager of Committee Section (11 Mar 2007) [No response]

A7 - Letter to Mr September (11 Mar 2007)

A8 - Response to Mene & September's letters (15 Mar 2007) ['Undemocratic' response]

A9 - Statement by Mr Hahndiek, former high-ranking Parliamentary official (7 Mar '07)

A10 - Policies:

(a) Old 'resignation' policy - no approval or adoption date

(b) New 'resignation' policy - approved in June 2006

A11 - Legal & formal request for Access to Information (4 Jan 2008) - [No response]

Enclosed, also find:

B1 - CCMA award (10 Sep 2006)

B2 - Pension Letters;

(a) From Labour Relations (22 Sep 2006),

(b) To Mr September, Labour Relations Manager (2 Oct 2006),

(c) From Labour Relations unit (11 Oct 2006)

B3 - Letter to Public Protector (8 Dec 2006)

B4 - Letter from Public Protector (30 Oct 2007)

B5 - Approval of Pension (19 Apr 2007)

I, as a patriotic citizen, value the efforts of the SAHRC to perform its functions 'without fear, favour or prejudice', as per the Constitution, the basic law of the Republic of South Africa. This bodes well for the future of our young democracy, whose vibrancy is measured hourly by the strength of statutory institutions, like the SAHRC and the Public Protector, which are mandated by the Constitution to support and strengthen constitutional democracy in our country.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

(signed)

G CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. Thanks also for your letter (04102/08) to Parliament and its response (11/02108), which I collected at your offices.

2. A copy was hand-delivered to Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament.

3. Section 181(3) - 'Other organs of state...must assist these institutions [e.g. SAHRC] to ensure the...dignity and effectiveness of these institutions'.

Section 181(4) - 'No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of these institutions [e.g. SAHRC]'

4. See the numerous enclosed letters, requesting information, which I wrote to Parliament. Most of these letters were ignored, even though the vision of Parliament is; "to be responsive to the needs of the People...'

5. Everyone has the right to access of information. I believe that the SAHRC should pursue this issue, because it is responsible for the successful implementation of Act 2 of 2000.

6. 'Pensionable service' means the years work at Parliament and prior service in the public sector. I had more than 10 years pensionable service - 9 years and 9 months at Parliament and 4 years at the Department of Education.

7. The difference between the two months' salary and the pension was too big for them! What happened to ethics, ubuntu, good governance and Parliament's vision '...to be responsive to the needs of the People'?

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - May 2008

9 May 2008

Ms B Sterris

Legal Officer: SAHRC

PO Box 3563

Cape Town

8000

Dear Ms Sterris

G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT – SUB JUDICE?

Thanks for your letter, dated 20 March 2008 [1]. I was surprised to find out that I referred the above-mentioned matter to the Constitutional Court. Seemingly, the matter is sub judice and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) cannot proceed with the investigation.

I, however, wish to inform you that the matter is not sub judice, because it is not in front of the Court. I wrote to the Court on 10 May 2006 [2] (see A1), but was advised on 29 May 2006 (A2) to pursue other avenues. Parliament was aware that my attempt was stillborn, because the Court never contacted them (the defendant!?), during this two year period. I believe that Parliament is deliberately taking the SAHRC on a wild goose chase, because it knows that it erred by violating a fundamental human right – one for which people, like former President Mandela, fought and went to jail for. In addition, (I believe) it does not have the original and signed documents requested by the SAHRC on 4 February 2008. It is thus consciously frustrating the SAHRC in the execution of its functions, which is a contravention of the Constitution [3] and a punishable offence, in terms of the SAHRC Act, Act 54 of 1994.

I, as a citizen of a free and democratic South Africa, have been trying, for years, to access information, with regard to the 'resignation policy', from the so-called People's Parliament, but to no avail [4]. The low-point is Parliament's unresponsiveness to the requirements of the Constitution [5], which is fleshed out in the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act 2, 2000) (A11). I also approached a former senior manager (A9), with 36 years experience, for information, but he never heard of the policy! This raises a serious question: Did the management and Presiding Officers of Parliament ever approved such a policy?

Enclosed, please find;

A.1-Letter to the Constitutional Court (10 May 2006)

A.2-Response from Constitutional Court (29 May 2006)

A.3-E-mails to & from Mr September, Labour Relations Manager (29, 30 Aug 2006)

A.4-Letter to Mr Dingani, Secretary to Parliament (11 Sept 2006) [No response]

A.5-Letter to Mr Phaweni, Manager of the Policy Unit (6 Dec 2006) [No response]

A.6-Letter to Ms Mene, Section Manager of the Committee Section (11 Mar 2007)

A.7-Letter to Mr September (12 Mar 2007)

A.8-Response to Mene & September's letters (15 Mar 2007)

A.9-Statement by Mr Hahndiek, former senior Parliamentary official (7 Mar 2007)

A.10-Policies:

(a) Old 'resignation' policy – no approval or adoption date

(b) Draft policy - workshopped with staff in Dec 2005

(implementation date Jan 2006, but never implemented. Why? Because I Stood, as an independent candidate against the ANC in 2006?)

(b) New 'resignation' policy – approved in Jun '06, implement date – 1 Jul '06

(it removed 'non-legislative statutory bodies', but still unconstitutional)

A.11 Legal & formal request for Access to Information (4 Jan 2008) – [No response]

I should not have been surprised by the 'cat-and-mouse' games of Parliament, because they used the same tactics, when they were supposed to pay my pension. Parliament argued that I 'resigned voluntarily', when I contravened its generally unknown policy. The CCMA, found that I did not resign, but was dismissed (see B2). Parliament accepted the CCMA verdict and executed the award, i.e. the payment of two month's salary [B-(3a)]. When I requested my pension [B-2(b)] - in terms of the rules of the pension scheme [B1], an employee is eligible for a pension, if he/she has (a) more than 10 years of pensionable service [6] and (b) been dismissed - they became uncooperative [B-3(c)]. In my opinion, Parliament's Labour Relations Unit thought that I had less than 10 years pensionable service and was quick to accept the CCMA award, but when they realized that I qualified for a pension, they returned to their pre-CCMA position [B-3(c)] and simply refused to pay my pension [7]!

I approached the Public Protector [B4] and he eventually found in my favour [B5]. I then received my pension in late 2007, after Parliament conceded [B6]. Parliament's 'games' were not only unprofessional and unethical, but also detrimental to the Constitution and Parliament, as an institution, which is supposedly the epitome of democracy and good governance.

Enclosed, please find;

B.1-Parliament's Pension Scheme (non-contributory)

B.2-CCMA award (10 Sep 2006)

B.3-Pension Letters

(a) From Labour Relations (22 Sep 2006)

(b) To Mr September, Labour Relations Manager (2 Oct 2006)

(c) From Labour Relations unit (11 Oct 2006)

B.4-Letter to Public Protector (8 Dec 2006)

B.5-Letter from Public Protector (30 Oct 2007)

B.6-Approval of Pension (5 June 2007)

I, as a patriotic citizen, value the efforts of the SAHRC to perform its functions 'without fear, favour or prejudice', as per the Constitution, the basic law of the Republic of South Africa. This bodes well for the future of our young democracy, whose vibrancy is measured hourly by the strength of statutory institutions, like the SAHRC and the Public Protector, which are mandated by the Constitution to support and strengthen constitutional democracy in our country.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1: Thanks also for your letter to Parliament (04/02/08) and its response (11/02/08), which I collected at your offices. I addressed my response to Ms Moore (Legal Intern) on 11 April 2008, but the hand-delivered envelope seemingly disappeared between the receptionist and your office.

2: I personally delivered a copy to the office of Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament.

3: S.181 (3) – 'Other organs of state...must assist... these institutions [e.g. SAHRC] to ensure the ...dignity and effectiveness of these institutions'

S.181 (4) - 'No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of these institutions [e.g. SAHRC]'

4: See the numerous enclosed letters, requesting information, which I wrote to Parliament. Most of these letters were ignored, even though the vision of Parliament is; '...to be responsive to the needs of the People...'

5: Everyone has the right to access of information. I believe that the SAHRC should pursue this issue, because it is responsible for the successful implementation of Act 2 of 2000. If you need a formal complaint, then I will do so.

6: Pensionable service means the years work at Parliament and prior service in the public sector. I had more than 10 years pensionable service - 9 years and 9 months at Parliament and 4 years at the Department of Education.

7: The difference between the two months' salary, i.e. R19 666,00 (before tax) and the pension, i.e. R108 031,78 (before tax) was too big for them! What happened to ethics, ubuntu, good governance and Parliament's vision '...to be responsive to the needs of the People...'?

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - June 2008

10 June 2008

Adv Lawrence Mushwana

The Public Protector

PO Box

Pretoria

0001

Dear Adv Mushwana

REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORD OF PUBLIC BODY

The aim of this letter is twofold; firstly, I wish to thank you and your office for your sterling work in securing my pension from Parliament, in terms of section 182 of the Constitution. Parliament, which defied the ruling of the CCMA, a statutory body that was establish through legislation passed by this very Parliament, succumbed to your 'charm' and released my pension. Thank you. The second matter refers to my request for information.

The information that I requires relates to the correspondence between your office and Parliament with regard to my pension. I would like to understand the reason for Parliament's refusal to execute the ruling of the CCMA and its disrespectful (or 'un-ubuntu') behaviour towards me, a citizen of this country and one of the voices for which it speaks. Parliament is repeating its shameful and unethical behaviour towards the South African Human Rights Commission, which is investigating the constitutionality of the policy that it used to dismiss me in 2006.

As you can see from the enclosed correspondence, I applied initially on 26 September 2007 for certain records. I further applied on 5 January 2008 to Adv Gary Pienaar, who was then the head of the Western Cape office, but he indicated that the authority, to release certain documents, was invested in you.

I would therefore appreciate your urgent input on this matter.

Enclosed, please find:

Letter (Office of Public Protector to Mr G Campher - 30 Oct 2007)

Letter (Mr G Campher to SAHRC - 9 May 2008)

Formal application for 'access to record of public body' - 5 Jan 2008

E-mails (Adv Pienaar & Mr Schutte to Mr G Campher - 21 & 22 Feb 2008)

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

National Office

Private Bag X677

PRETORIA 0001

TEL: (012) 3222916

Fax: (012) 3225093

Please quote this reference in your reply: 7/2 - 13897/06wc

Enquiries: Dr Schutte

Tel: (012) 366 7000

Date: 2008-06-25

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

APPLICATION IN TERMS OF PROMOTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT (ACT OF 2000): MR G CAMPHER

1. Your request for access to information refers. Once again: our apologies for taking so long to finalise the matter.

2. Notice is hereby given in terms of section 25 of Act 2 of 2000 that access is granted to the documents relevant to your request as per the attached list.

3. Notice is further given in terms of the said section 25 that access is refused in terms of section 34(1) of Act 2 of 2000 to the name of another complainant to the office of the Public Protector, and who was mentioned in document 2 on the attached list. The name of that complainant will therefore be deleted on the copy of document 2 that will be provided to you.

4. The access fee to be paid amounts to R50. This amount is made up as follows:

R 35 - prescribed access fee

R 15 - 25 copies x 60c per copy

R nil - 1 hour 0 minutes spent on search and preparation of record x R15 per hour minus the first hour: R50 – total

5. The above amount can be deposited into the account of the office of the Public Protector, and proof of deposit faxed to (012) 366-7050, for the attention of M Schutte.

6. On receipt of proof of payment of the access fee, access will be given in the form of copies of the documents that we will post to you.

7. Regarding the refusal in terms of sections 34 (mentioned in paragraph 3 above), the reasons for deleting the name are the following:

7.1 The name of the other complainant mentioned in document 2 is irrelevant to the present application for access to information;

7.2 The reference to the other complainant can be classified as personal information about a third party;

7.3 Such information has to be refused in terms of section 34(1) of Act 2 of 2000 unless the third party agrees in writing to it being made available to the person applying for access to information.

8. Should you insist that the name of the other complainant be made available to you, I shall approach that complainant for his permission in writing to disclose his name to you.

9. Please note that there is no provision for an internal appeal in this matter. However, you may apply, within 30 days, for appropriate relief by way of application to a court of law against the decision of the Information Officer regarding the access fee to be paid, or the form of access granted, or against the refusal of the request.

10. Please feel free to phone me at (012) 366-7113 should you require clarity on any aspect.

With kind regards

(signed)

DR M SCHUTTE

pp INFORMATION OFFICER

* The information was eventually forwarded to me by the Public Protector. However, the same 'application for information' made to Parliament was not entertained.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - July 2008

22 July 2008

Mr J Kollapen

The Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission

Private Bag X 2700

Houghton

2041

Dear Mr Kollapen

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WORKPLACE POLICY

I need your intervention to re-energise the investigation into my dispute with the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (RSA).

On Friday, 9 May 2008, I wrote to Ms Bahia Sterris (Legal Officer), giving full details why my case was not 'sub judice', as was mischievously stated by the Parliament (RSA). She indicated that she had to compile a report for head office in Pretoria, because my case, which was first raised in September 2006, was being prioritised. When I phoned in early June, she said that she would request feedback from Pretoria on Friday, 20 June 2008. This would allow enough time for Pretoria to apply its mind to her report.

I phoned on Friday, 4 July 2008, but was informed that Ms Sterris have resigned! I was referred to Mr Wayeed Adams, who informed me that the computers were down, because the office was being rewired. I phoned Mr Adams on Tuesday, 8 July 2008, but was told the same story - the computers were down. I then phoned on Friday, 11 July, but did not get hold of him. I left my details with the switchboard/receptionist and asked that Mr Adams return my call. He never did.

I (calmly) phoned on Tuesday, 15 July 2008. This time Mr Adams informed me that my file did not cross his desk yet, which meant that it was still 'at the back'. 'At the back' meant that it was with the legal interns (back to square one?). I did not pursue the matter, but later phoned the office and asked the receptionist/switchboard what the job title of Mr Adams was. I was informed that Mr Adams was a legal intern and not a senior legal officer, as I presumed!

Once again, I would appreciate your intervention to finalise this matter, before October 2008. Prof Asmal noted in his letter, nominations for the elections will soon take place and citizen, like me and state employees (e.g. employees of Parliament and the nine provincial legislatures) would like to know whether we could exercise our constitutionally enshrined political rights without being victimised.

Thanking you in advance

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - September 2008

19 September 2008

Mr J Kollapen

The Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission

Private Bag X 2700

Houghton

2041

Dear Mr Kollapen

WITHOUT FEAR, FAVOUR OR PREJUDICE

It is more than two years, since 18 September 2006, when I wrote the first letter to the SAHRC. My matter has not moved substantively, even though, I wrote numerous letters and made many telephone calls, many of which were not responded to.

I am of the opinion that the SAHRC is the most important Chapter Nine institution (as per the Constitution), because it protects and promotes the human rights culture in our young constitutional democracy. I further believe that the political rights in the Bill of Rights are the most fundamental, because in a democracy, an individual is defined as a citizen, first and foremost, and then as something else - man/woman, rich/poor, Christian/Moslem/Hindu/Jew/etc.

This has been demonstrated by our past, in which the majority of South African's rights were a 'given' – gender, religious, etc. However, we still did not feel part of South Africa, because;

(1) without Parliamentary representation, the laws were forced onto us, and

(2) most of our leaders were banned, in exile or in prison.

In short, our political rights, as citizens of this country, were violated!

I believe that my political rights have also been violated in 2006, because as an employee of Parliament, I was treated as a second class citizen – I could vote, but I could not be voted for! Active participation in elections for public office is the bedrock of a democracy, i.e. a political system driven and owned by the People (or demos).

The recent events of the last few months, as per the newspapers indicate that our young democracy is under attack - attacks on the judiciary, NPA, human rights veterans (like Prof Asmal), the abuse of state power for personal gain, etc. The 'soft' response of the SAHRC to some of these events, especially the "I will kill for Zuma" statements of Julius Malema (ANC Youth League President) and Zwelinzima Vavi (COSATU Secretary-General) did not go down well with the average law-abiding South African citizen [note 1].

The ruling [note 2] of the Pietermaritzburg High Court (Judge Chris Nicholson) on Friday, 1 September 2008 to set the criminal charges against Mr Jacob Zuma aside was a victory for the independence of the courts and other state institutions, as guaranteed by the Constitution, because they support and promote democracy and human rights in the country. Even though, millions of other South Africans may believe that Mr Zuma is guilty of fraud, corruption, racketeering and theft, they accepted the judgement, because they respect the independence and objectivity of our judiciary.

Judge Nicholson was of the view that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which ignored the legal requirement to consult with Mr Zuma before charging him, was politically influenced, when they recharged him, after he defeated Mr Mbeki for the presidency of the ANC. It did not perform its constitutionally mandated function without fear, favour or prejudice, which severely damaged the credibility of the institution and reversed the gains made in the fight against crime.

I am of the view that the SAHRC is standing before its greatest test yet – whether to perform its function without fear, favour or prejudice or to continue protecting a tainted political institution, i.e. National Parliament, that has stumbled from one scandal to the next – arms deal, qualified audit reports, dismissal of whistleblowers, nepotism in staff appointments, the abuse of state resources for personal gain, the rape of its own values, etc. [note 3]. If it does not stand firm, the consequences will be disastrous, because the SAHRC is the pillar in the promotion and protection of human rights in South Africa – rights that define us as human beings and as South Africans! These rights are more important than life to most South Africans, because many of them, their friends or family members were banned, exiled, imprisoned or killed in the fight for these rights – these rights were won at a price, not for self-enrichment [note 4] or nepotism, but the advancement of batho pele ('people first') and ubuntu ('sense of humanity').

I accept that the financial resources of the SAHRC is insufficient, but more staff, bigger offices, better salaries, etc. will not increase the confidence of South Africans in the institution to execute its constitutional mandate without fear, favour or prejudice. At this crucial juncture in its history, the SAHRC needs integrity, ethical leadership and the political will to guide and lead this young democracy through its teething stage, so that we can regain the international respect we had in the mid-1990's – and more importantly the self-respect we, as South Africans, had for ourselves.

I therefore call on the SAHRC to take my case to the Constitutional Court by 10 October 2008, failing which, I will be forced to become more creative. This may damage the reputation of the SAHRC and may be the final straw that crushes the belief of ordinary citizens in state institutions that have to promote, defend and support human rights in South Africa. Let me remind you of the words of Mr John F. Kennedy (former president of the USA): "If the human rights of one citizen are violated, then the rights of all citizens are threatened". In the similar vein, James Baldwin (1924-87), the American writer and political activist once stated: "They came for the Jews and I did nothing. They came for the Communists and I did nothing. They came for the Blacks and I did nothing. Then they came for me, and nobody did anything."

I reiterate my call - my plea - that the 'South African Human Rights Commission' addresses this gross injustice that has been committed against me and Mr Abbas [note 5], because intolerance, victimization and intimidation seem to be common place in South Africa. It is like a cancer that erodes the political and ethical gains that we have made since 1994. Please act on this matter, before the window of opportunity closes [note 6]...

Enclosed, please find the following letters:

1. Letter to Mr Mohamed (SAHRC W-Cape, Office Head) - dated, 18 Sept 2006

2. Letter from SAHRC (closure of Mr Campher's file) – dated 20 Mar 2008

3. Values, Mission, Vision of National Parliament

4. Newspaper articles

5. Flyer about 'statutory bodies' (which include school governing bodies...)

6. Letter to Sean September (Labour Relations, Parliament) – dated 30 Jan 2008

7. Act 32 of 2000 (allows Municipal employees to exercise their citizenship to the full, i.e. they can stand for public office – dated 20 Nov 2000

8. Policy of Western Cape Parliament (allows employees to exercise their citizenship to the full, i.e. they can stand for public office) – dated 1 Aug 2000 [note 8]

9. Letter from SAHRC (prima facie evidence that National Parliament's policy is unconstitutional and illegal) – dated 20 Mar 2007

10. Letter from Belvue Primary (Mr Campher was Governing Board member – he has been violating National Parliament's policy, unknowingly, since Sept 2000!)

11. Letter to Parliament from Prof Asmal (requesting reinstatement of Mr Campher) - dated 20 Mar 2007

12. Letter to SAHRC from Prof Asmal (requesting application to Constitutional Court to strike down policy) – dated 25 Jan 2008

13. Letter to Mr Sterris of SAHRC - (Mr Campher's matter is not sub judice) - dated 9 May 2008

If you need any further information, please contact me on my telephone/cellular number or e-mail.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

c.c. - Prof Kader Asmal (former Member of Parliament & Cabinet)

NOTES:

1: Some commentators believe that the Commissioners of the SAHRC did not want to alienate the people that may be in government after next year's elections and who will have the power to renew their contracts.

2: Some commentators called it brave.

3: It is clear from the evidence provided here that the political and administrative 'leadership' of National Parliament have been running a campaign of lies, deception and cover-ups to destroy me and my family politically, economically and spiritually – a clear crime against humanity.

4: Do you remember the statement of Mr Smuts Ngonyama, (ANC spokesman in the Mbeki ANC presidency), who said that he joined the struggle to be rich?

5: Mr Abbas was also dismissed by National Parliament, because he stood for the ID in the 2006 elections. The promises of assistance from the ID did not materialize, which destroyed his relationship with his party.

6: The window closes at 16:00 on Friday, 10 October 2008.

7: It is interesting that municipalities and the provincial parliament allow its staff members to participate in elections, but not national parliament, which should have blazed the trail in the advancement of democracy in the country.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - October 2008

8 October 2008

Ms Patricia de Lille, MP

The President: Independent Democrats

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Ms De Lille

CORRESPONDENCE

I wrote a letter to you in April 2007 in which I asked about the whereabouts of Mr Abbas, who was dismissed with me by Parliament (RSA), when we stood in the 2006 elections.

I wish to request a big favour. I need a copy of that letter, because a computer virus destroyed my files. I wish to update my files, because I have been able to convince the South African Human Rights Commission to investigate the unconstitutionality of Parliament's policy.

I would appreciate your assistance and please contact me for collection of the letter at your offices, at your earliest convenience.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you

(signed)

G CAMPHER

* No response

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail: (To: Eric Mokonyama – SAHRC)

Thurs, 9 Oct 2008

Case No: WC/26/459/BS

From: Gabriel Campher

To: "Eric Mokonyama" <SAHRC>

Hi Eric

During our telephonic conversation on Wed, 1 Oct 2008, I got the impression that you had empathy with my argument, i.e. the policy of Parliament (RSA) is unconstitutional. You promised to write an internal memo to the head office's director, in which you would set out the legal and ethical implications of the policy. You promised to give feedback by Thurs, 2 Oct 2008. The fact that you have not responded, yet, means that you have walked into a brick wall - no support from the office director, maybe an instruction that you should 'lie low' and let the matter be. I know how you feel; an ethical dilemma – having your idealism of building a just and caring society crushed OR follow instructions and not be 'redeployed' (even worse, loose your job). Don't worry brother. It is not your fault.

It is just sad that the moral capital with which we started in 1994 has dried up, like a river that has seen too many dry seasons. The future does not bode well for our Motherland, because statutory institutions like the SAHRC that has to ensure that the Constitution become a living document – a strong, living tree, like the Constitutional Court's logo, has compromise its independence and mandate; to act without fear, favour or prejudice. If the South African people lose faith in these institutions, then they loose faith in their democracy, in their country and their own, as well as their children's future...

...and that is sad, because the blood that has been spilled to free this country, would have been all in vain.

Patriotic greetings

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:29 PM

Your Complaint - WC/26/459/BS

From: "Eric Mokonyama" <SAHRC>

To: Gabriel Campher

Hi Mr Campher,

I could not get you on your mobile and wish to apologize for calling you only after you have called me. Be advised that I have since referred your matter up for consideration and today send a reminder email.

I still await a response and will communicate same to soon upon receipt.

Regards,

Eric Mokonyama

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - November 2008

FACSIMILE

TO: Annelie Du Plessis (Lawyers for Human Rights)

NUMBER: 021 883 3302

FROM: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 17 NOVEMBER 2008

SUBJECT: Human Right Violation

I was dismissed by Parliament (RSA) in 2006, after I unknowingly contravened a policy, when I stood as an independent candidate in the local government elections. This matter was raised with the SA Human Rights Commission. However for the last two years, the SAHRC has been dragging its feet to execute its constitutional mandate (to promote and protect human rights), without 'fear, favour or prejudice'. [Parliament's policy stated that an employee 'has resigned' if he/she stood in elections, but the CCMA found that it was a dismissal. There are currently over 1000 employees at Parliament, who cannot participate fully in our young democracy]

Section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution states that "every adult (South African) citizen has the right to stand for public office, and if elected, to hold office". This is the very reason why thousands of South Africans were imprisoned, exiled and killed - they made immense sacrifices so that we can have freedom in this country.

I firmly believe that the policy is unconstitutional and that it should be struck down by the courts.

I would appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Thank you

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail from Herold Gie, a legal firm

Subject: Constitutional Court

From: "Pierre Le Roux"

Date: Wed, November 26, 2008 7:18 am

To: G Campher

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Campher

I refer to our discussion last week regarding the possibility of approaching the Constitutional Court of the basis of the infringement of your rights

I have had another look at the papers you sent to me. I still think that prima facie you will have difficulty in convincing the Court that the prohibition laid down by Parliament as your employer was unreasonable. Even if we were to elect to proceed in any event I think that there are significant hurdles to overcome financially.

I estimate that you would have to budget at least R250 000 for counsels fees quite apart from the attorneys fees and other expenses.

In the circumstances I assume you may wish to reconsider the feasibility of proceeding.

I will leave your file of papers at our fifth floor reception

Kindly let me have your instructions

Yours faithfully

Pierre Le Roux

Director

HEROLD GIE ATTORNEYS

Cape Town Office

8 Darling Street, Cape Town, 8001

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: G Campher

Sent: 28 November 2008 07:46 AM

To: Pierre Le Roux

Subject: Re: Constitutional Court

Dear Mr Le Roux

Thank you for your advice. I'll have to seek funding to pursue this matter and hopefully, sooner rather than later, will be able to provide you with the instruction to proceed. I believe however that Parliament's policy is not only unreasonable, but it is unfair, illegal and unconstitutional. I also believe that 'justice' is a virtue and not a commodity - it cannot be measured in monetary terms. Yes, the 'wheels of justice' turn very slowly for the average South African, but they do turn! Patience is another virtue...

Thanks again.

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

Subject: RE: Constitutional Court

From: "Pierre Le Roux" mailto:pleroux@heroldgie.co.za

Date: Fri, November 28, 2008 7:51 am

To: G Campher

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Campher

Thank you for your message.

I await your instructions

Sincerely

Pierre le Roux

[* I never responded; no money.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 8

**Dismissal - January 2009**

'One lie destroys a thousand truths.'

Twi proverb (Ghana)

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER: WESTERN CAPE

Ref: 1/2/2/1(2009/01)

Enquiries: Director Slingers

Tel. No: (021) 417 7115

Fax No: (021) 417 7278

Date: 20 January 2009

Mr Gabriel Campher

BELHAR

7493

BELHAR INQUIRY 3/12/2008: FAILURE TO AFFORD NECESSARY SUPPORT TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

1. Your request that a criminal case be registered for investigation in terms of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1994, refers.

2. Your request emanate from a complaint which you lodge with the SA Human Rights Commission. Your file was closed by the Commission, because the matter was referred to the Constitutional Court for consideration.

3. The Constitutional Court has declined to entertain the matter owing to its functions and jurisdiction. In the correspondence from the Constitutional Court, dated 2006-05-29, it was advised that the Human Rights Commission would be in a better position to deal with your case.

4. This Office is also of the opinion that the alleged violation of your rights in this case and the allegations that the Commission did not receive the necessary support from your employer and other responsible persons to finalise your investigation, is not a matter to be investigated by the South African Police Service. The Commission has the necessary statutory powers and functions to, in its own name, take action against persons suspected of having failed to give the necessary support to the Commission.

5. Taking the above into consideration, you are kindly advised to inform the Commission of the said correspondence from the Constitutional Court and request that your file be re-opened or register a new complaint. This process has been confirmed by Mr Leo McAuley of the Commission. He may be contacted at (021) 4262277.

6. The matter is hereby regarded as finalised and the enquiry file is closed.

(signed)

SM SLINGERS

DIRECTOR: LEGAL SERVICES-WESTERN CAPE

\-----------------------------------------------------------

By Facsimile

20 January 2009

Ms B Sterris

Legal Officer

South African Human Rights Commission

PO Box 3563

Cape Town

8000

Dear Ms Sterris

RE-OPEN CASE: G CAMPHER vs PARLIAMENT

I hereby wish to request that my case be re-opened.

The matter was never sub-judicae, as stated by parliament in its letter, dated 11 February 2008. I challenged this lie in the letters to Ms Anna Moore, legal intern (11 April 2008) and yourself (9 May 2008)

Attached, please find;

(a) Letter to the Constitutional Court

(b) Report from the SAPS

I await your response.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

By Facsimile

TO: Mr S September (Unit Manager: Labour Relations- Parliament)

NUMBER: 021- 403 2010

FROM : Mr G Campher (Citizen of the Republic of South Africa)

DATE: Thurs, 22 Jan 2009

SUBJECT: Assistance to SAHRC

PRIORITY: URGENT

Dear Mr September,

In your Office's letter, dated 11 February 2008, to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), you stated that you were unable to assist the SAHRC with the required information, because I referred the matter to the Constitutional Court.

As a law graduate, you knew that a mere letter from a private citizen to the Constitutional Court, the highest court in the land (or any court, for that matter), does not make a matter sub judice, because lower courts have to refer matters to it. I have approached the South African Police Services (SAPS) to lay criminal charges, in terms of section 18 of the Human Rights Commission Act, but they were of the view that criminal intent could not be shown, because you did not see the response of the Constitutional Court.

I hereby give you the benefit of the doubt, something which Parliament did not bestow on me, and attach the correspondence of the Court. I would appreciate it, if you could therefore forward the required information to the SAHRC, as a matter of urgency. As you know, there are currently 1128 South African citizens, who are also employees of Parliament, that cannot stand for public office, because of an unconstitutional workplace policy (in my opinion). This matter should be addressed, so that Parliament can take its place as the supreme institution of democracy in South Africa and beyond.

Attached, please find;

1. Letter from the Constitutional Court, 29 May 2006

2. Letter from the SAPS, 20 January 2009

3. Letter to the SAHRC, 20 January 2009

I would appreciate your cooperation in the above matter.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

MR G CAMPHER

cc : Ms B Sterris (SAHRC)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Our Ref: WC/26/459-AM

26 January 2009

Mr M Tabata

HR Practitioner: Employee Relations

Parliament

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

RE: COMPLAINANT – MR GABRIEL CAMPHER

In a letter to your office date 4 February 2008 (1st attachment) the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) requested that we be furnished with a copy of the Parliamentary workplace policy, legislation or practice relevant to the abovementioned complainant's case. In your response to us dated 11 February 2009 (2nd attachment) you stated the complainant's matter was being dealt with by the Constitutional Court and as such our investigation was sub judicae. In good faith we withdrew from investigating the matter and informed the complainant of such.

We note that on 29 May 2006 the complainant was advised that his application to the Constitutional Court was unsuccessful. We further note that you corresponded with the complainant in letters since that date, specifically on 22 September 2006 "re: yourself vs Parliament", 11 October 2006 "re: pension pay-out" and 15 March 2007 "re: contravention of policy". We thus assume you have familiarity with his case.

We draw your attention to section 158(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, which states that:

"Every citizen who is qualified to vote for a Municipal Council is eligible to be a member of that Council, except...anyone who is appointed by, or is in the service of, the state in another sphere, and receives remuneration for that appointment or service, and who has been disqualified from membership of a Municipal Council in terms of national legislation."

We kindly request that you furnish us with the 'Policy on Employee Conduct' at the time of the complainant's situation. We are aware of a new policy, operational since 2006 and kindly request information on the legislation upon which it is based. We would appreciate your response on or before 5 February 2009.

We thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.

Yours faithfully

SAHRC – Western Cape

(signed)

Per: Leo McAuley

(Legal Investigator)

(signed)

Per: Bahia Sterris

(Legal Officer)

Know you rights, know where you stand.

Chairperson: J Kollapen; Deputy Chairperson: Z Mojodina; Commissioners: K Govender, T Manthata, L Wessels, C McClain-Nhlapo, Acting Executive Officer: T Thipanyane

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

LABOUR RELATIONS

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

www.parliament.gov.za

Tel: (021) 403 2559

28 January 2009

South African Human Rights Commission

132 Adderley Street,

7th Floor, ABSA Building

Cape Town

8001

Your Ref: WC/26/459-AM

Attention: Mr Leo McAuley

Per Telefax: (021) 426 2875

COMPLAINT MR GABRIEL CAMPHER

Your letter dated 26 January 2009 refers.

We are indeed familiar with the specifics of this case.

Mr Campher referred his case to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), South African Police Service (SAPS), Public Protector, Labour Court, Constitutional Court and yourselves.

We consider this case closed, however we attach hereto Chapter 8 of Parliament's Policy Directives as requested, which was applicable in Mr Campher's case.

We maintain that Mr Campher's rights were not violated with his termination.

Please contact Adv S September on the above telephone number should you need to discuss the matter.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

Mr M Tabata

HR Practitioner: Employee Relations

Parliament (RSA)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - February 2009

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

132 Adderley Street

7th Floor

ABSA Building

Cape Town

8000

OUR REF: WC/26/459

Mr ZA Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

PO Box 15

CAPETOWN

8000

17 February 2009

Dear Mr Dingani

RE: COMPLAINANT-MR GABRIEL CAMPHER

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has been investigating a complaint from the above-mentioned complainant and has thus far not been satisfied with the content of correspondence received from Parliament's office of Employee Relations. We kindly seek your assistance in the matter.

On 1 March 2006 Mr Campher accepted nomination as an independent candidate for councillor in municipal elections. On 6 March 2006 he was informed that he had 'voluntarily resigned' from his position as a committee secretary in Parliament as per chapter 8(4)(1) of Parliament's Policy Directives and Implementation Procedures.

On 10 September 2006 the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration awarded damages to Mr Campher and found that he had, in fact, been dismissed as a committee secretary.

From 1 July 2006 the above-mentioned Policy Directives and Implementation Procedures have been replaced by amended Policy Directives. The complainant alleges that both the old policy and the new policy are unconstitutional whereby they are in violation of section 158(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.

In a letter to Mr M Tabata (HR Practitioner: Employee Relations) dated 26 January 2009 and attached, we kindly requested copies of the old policy applicable at the time of the complainant's dismissal and further information on the national legislation upon which it and the new policy are based as we have been unable thus far to obtain such information. Mr Tabata's letter of response did not address our requests and instead included a draft Chapter 8 of Parliament's Policy Directives. Thus the content and date of inception of the policy actually adopted remain unknown to us, as does any information concerning its basis in national legislation.

In subsequent correspondence with the complainant, it was suggested that we proceed to correspond with your office on the matter. We kindly request that we be furnished with the above-mentioned information and hope that it may be forthcoming on or before 6 March 2009.

Yours Faithfully

SAHRC-Western Cape

(signed)

Per: Leo McAuley

Legal Intern

(signed)

Per: Bahia Sterris

Legal Officer

Know your rights, Accept your responsibility.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

By Facsimile

FAX: MR ZA DINGANI (Secretary to National Parliament)

FROM: MR G CAMPHER (March Convenor)

DATE: THURS, 19 FEBRUARY 2009

SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM

Dear Mr Dingani

We, the West Bank Greens, hereby wish to request that you take acceptance of a memorandum that we will deliver to you on Friday, 6 March 2009 at about 13:00. This will be the culmination of our street march and we would appreciate it if you could meet us at the Louis Botha statue (Plein Street).

The memorandum will highlight the current unconstitutional situation where 1128 employees of National Parliament are prevented by a workplace policy from fully participating in the upcoming general elections. I.e. they cannot stand as candidates. In terms of the IEC's election time-table, the political parties have to submit their lists of candidates by 2 March 2009, after which the above-mentioned South African citizens will not able to exercise their constitutional right to stand as candidates.

Parliament is fully aware that this oppressive policy is not in line with section 19(3) of the Constitution (Act 106, 1996), because it has been refusing to cooperate with the SAHRC, which has been investigating the constitutionality of this workplace policy for the last two years! Hopefully, the publicity from this march will motivate Parliament to live its vision, so that Parliament becomes a 'People-centred institution that meets the needs of the People'.

If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

G CAMPHER

Cel: 073 123 4567

\-----------------------------------------------------------

By Facsimile

FAX: MS JUDITH COHEN (Acting Provincial Office Manager: W-Cape SAHRC)

FROM: MR G CAMPHER (March Convenor)

DATE: THURS, 19 FEBRUARY 2009

SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM

Dear Ms Cohen

We, the West Bank Greens, hereby wish to request that you take acceptance of a memorandum that we will deliver to your offices on Friday, 6 March 2009 at about 12:30. This will be the culmination of our street march and we would appreciate it if you could meet us on the ground floor of your building.

The memorandum will highlight the current unconstitutional situation where 1128 employees of National Parliament are prevented by a workplace policy from fully participating in the upcoming general elections. I.e. they cannot stand as candidates. In terms of the IEC's election time-table, the political parties have to submit their lists of candidates by 2 March 2009, after which the above-mentioned South African citizens will not able to exercise their constitutional right to stand as candidates.

The SAHRC is fully aware of this oppressive and unconstitutional policy, but have not been pursuing the matter with the necessary vigour and urgency. Hopefully, the publicity from this march will motivate the SAHRC to pursue its constitutional mandate without fear, favour or prejudice.

If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

G CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - March 2009

Via E-mail

Dear Former Colleague

THE RIGHT TO STAND

March is Human Rights month it is the month in which we celebrate our hard-won FREEDOM, yet it is also the month in which Parliament fired two employees, who exercised their political right to stand as candidates in the 2006 Local Government Elections. How many of you which to stand in the 2009 general election, but are too scared to loose your job? Yes, in a post-Apartheid South Africa, certain South Africans are still oppressed and treated as second class citizens!

The Freedom Charter's first chapter; 'The People shall govern', reads; "Every man and woman shall have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate for all bodies that make laws".

This was later transplanted into our Constitution:

-section (19)(3): Every adult citizen has the right-

(a) to vote in elections for any legislative body

(b) to stand for public office, and if elected to hold, to hold office

In Apartheid South Africa most of us were not free to do certain things. Many heroes made sacrifices, so that we can be FREE today to make certain choices or to do/not do certain things. They went to jail, exile, some were tortured and even killed. Today, some South Africans are still OPPRESSED, even though Madiba said: 'Never again shall one person oppress another in this country.' Was his and the others' sacrifices in vain?

Parliament (RSA)

The post-Apartheid Parliament had a policy that curtailed the rights of employees. They could not stand in elections or stand for School Governing Bodies and Community Police Forums. This shows that the policy was not in line with the post-1994 legislative framework. It was changed in July 2006 to only prohibit employees from standing for legislative bodies, but even this was contrary to the Freedom Charter and Constitution!

The old policy

If a staff member accepts a nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which she or he accepts such nomination or appointment.

The current policy

An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.

The issue is not how many of the 1128 employees wish to stand as candidates, but the fact that they are NOT FREE to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed political rights.

The Human Rights Commission

The Commission (SAHRC) indicated on 20 Apr 2007 that there is a prima facie case that Parliament's policy may be unconstitutional, but that further investigation was needed. Yes, almost two years ago! However, since then, nothing substantive has happened - Parliament has been running circles around them, even though the SAHRC has the powers to force Parliament to account. For example, it could lay charges against the two officials (Messrs September and Tabata), who have been lying to it or it could subpoena the Secretary to Parliament to submit the required documents, i.e. the signed and approved policy & on which national legislation it is based, that limits the employee's constitutional right, in terms of section 158(2) of the Constitution. Lying and obstructing an SAHRC investigation is a criminal offence, in terms of the Human Rights Act.

West Bank Greens

The organisation was formed in 2007 to develop the youth and learners of West Bank holistically and ethically, with the environment as the frame or medium. They are empowered to care for the Other (e.g. environment) and not for themselves not to be greedy, egoistic, etc. The environment is our living and social space, but it can also be used economically. This march intends to create ethical leaders and followers that build community and nation through the principle of solidarity.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, this march is not only about the 1128 disempowered employees of Parliament, per se, but it is about all the other marginalized and disempowered South Africans that do not know their rights or who cannot access the courts to enforce their rights, yet they build this great country; day by day, brick' by brick, calloused hand by

calloused hand.

Please join us on Friday, 6 March 2006, when the West Bank Greens march to Parliament and the Human Rights Commission. The march will start at 12:00 at CPUT in Keysergracht; the SAHRC (132 Adderley St.) at 12:30 and end at Parliament (Plein St) at about 13:00.

GABRIEL CAMPHER

Tel: 021 123 456789

Cel: 073 123 456789

E-mail: 123 456789

Website: 123 456789

Be the change, you want in the world-Mahatma Gandhi

The rights of every person is diminished, when the rights of one person is threatened- JF Kennedy

* This e-mail was send to former colleagues – I received only one response

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: Re: human rights

From: Fred*

Date: Mon, March 2, 2009 9:09 am

To: Gabriel Campher

Priority: Normal

Hi Gabriel,

Interesting read, check the date of the march you wrote "6 March 2006"

All the best for the elections.

Regards,

Fred*

[* Not real name. He was the only former colleague that responded.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

WESTERN CAPE

MEMO

TO: Ms J Steffers (Head Office)

FROM: Bahia Sterris (Legal Officer: WC)

CC: Ms Danaline Franzman (Head: Legal); Ms Judith Cohen (Acting Provincial Manager: WC)

DATE: 3 March 2009

RE: W-Cape Matters before Legal Committee

Dear Ms Steffers

As per the Minutes of Legal Committee Meeting (LCM) for 20 January 2009 the following is a current status update of WC matters.

1. Gabriel Campher

As per LCM minutes this matter is being handled by Mr E Mokonyama of our Legal Department: Head Office. Resolution was that Mr Mokonyama draft a memo with his view.

The Western Cape (WC) Office has liaised with Mr Mokonyama to ascertain who should deal with the matter, as it seems that we are also investigating the matter. It was agreed that as the WC is dealing with the matter and are awaiting feedback from Parliament we will proceed.

We previously corresponded with Parliament requesting a copy of their "Policy on Employee Conduct". We were advised that as matter is "sub judicae" they are attending to the matter. Advised that matter was not heard at the Constitutional Court. We once again request a copy of relevant documentation.

On 28 January 2009 we received a response from Parliament. They advised us that the complainant referred his case to the CCMA; SAPS; Public Protector; Labour Court; Constitutional Court and ourselves. They advised us they consider the case closed and maintain that complainant's rights were not violated. They advised us to contact their Adv S September on (021) 403 2559 should we need to discuss the matter. A copy of their Policy on "Termination of Service" was included. Complainant advised us that the CCMA advised him they have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He did not take the matter to the Labour Court and Constitutional Court.

The WC office currently has severe staff shortage. Mr E Mokonyama has been seized with this matter. We therefore request that this matter be pursued by Legal Department: Head Office.

Thank you

SAHRC-WESTERN CAPE

(signed)

PER: Bahia Sterris

Legal Office: Western Cape

\-----------------------------------------------------------

WEST BANK GREENS

MEMORANDUM*

TO: SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

FROM: WEST BANK GREENS

DATE: FRIDAY, 6 MARCH 2009

SUBJECT: POLITICAL OPPRESSION OF STAFF

This memorandum contains the concerns and demands of the West Bank Greens, with regard to the political oppression of the employees of Parliament.

In 1995, the original Congress of the People, which consisted of various progressive organisations, met in Kliptown, Soweto to compile a list of demands, which became known as the Freedom Charter. In the chapter called; The People shall govern, the Freedom Charter, stated: "Every man and woman shall have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate for all bodies and make laws."

This was transplanted to the 1996 Constitution, which states in section 19(3)(b): "Every South African citizen shall have the right to vote and stand for public office, and if elected, to hold office."

After his release from prison, Mr Nelson Mandela said: "Never again shall one person oppress another in this country". His worst nightmare came true, because behind the walls of Parliament, 1128 employees, that is 1128 South African citizens are scared to exercise their political rights. Madiba went to prison so that we do not have to go to prison; Madiba sacrificed the best years of his life, so that we do not have to sacrifice the best years of our lives; Madiba sacrificed the many birthday parties of his children, so that we can enjoy the birthday parties of our children.

Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament, the person who hires and fires the employees of Parliament, we wish to express our horror that the employees of a post-Apartheid Parliament are politically oppressed. This Parliament is the culmination of years of struggle by heroic men and women, including yourself that made tremendous sacrifices so that we can be FREE.

We demand:

1. That Parliament repeal its Apartheid-era workplace policies,

2. That Parliament cooperates with the two-year investigation of the SAHRC into this matter and provides the required information, especially since there is no signed and approved version of this workplace policy.

Thank you

(Signed)

[for West Bank Greens]

MEMORANDUM RECEIVED BY:

Name: Tango Laman

Rank: Chief Operations Officer (Parliament-RSA)

Signature: (signed)

Date: 6 March 2009

*In this context, Memorandum' means 'a list of demands'.

** Go to You-Tube (www.youtube.com; search under 'parliament mandela by gcampher')

\-----------------------------------------------------------

FAX

TO: Mr Eric Mokonyama (Investigator: Head Office-SAHRC)

FAX: 011-484 1360

FROM: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 10 March 2009

SUBJECT: Non-Cooperation of Parliament

COVER: 1 (incl. cover)

Dear Eric

I'm totally disappointed with the SAHRC, the Chapter 9 institution that is supposed to promote and strengthen our fragile democracy. Yet again it allowed Parliament to enjoy violating the human rights of not one, but 1128 South African citizens. This is normally taken very seriously in a Constitutional Democracy!

On 22 Jan 2009, I faxed a letter to Sean September (copied to Bahia Sterris) pointing out that I laid a criminal charge against him, but the SAPS believed that it would be difficult to prove criminal intent. With this action, I showed him (and the SAHRC) the seriousness of this case and asked him to forward the required info urgently to the SAHRC.

Mr Leo McAuley (SAHRC-Intern) wrote twice in February to Parliament. The first response was deliberately insufficient. In the second he gave the Secretary to Parliament until 6 March 2009 to respond. The Secretary (unsurprisingly) did not. It now seems that Ms Sterris (SAHRC-Legal Officer) does not want to follow through and want to hand the file over to you. Yet, another delay in this to year long investigation.

The SAHRC must use its legal powers and force Parliament to hand over the required documents, i.e. it must perform its function 'without fear, favour or prejudice', as per the Constitution. Parliament is undermining and sabotaging an investigation of the SAHRC, which is a criminal offence, in terms of the SAHRC Act.

Please act now and save the integrity, impartiality and dignity of the SAHRC, in the interest of our democracy!

Thank you

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

* This fax was not responded to.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

12 March 2009

Mr M Coetzee

Acting Secretary to Parliament

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sir

BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS [1]

I believe that 'congratulations' are in order, even though it is never ideal to take over the reins of a noble institution, such as Parliament, under a dark cloud. However, if you believe in the 'grand plan' and that nothing happens without a reason, then things will start to make sense. The 'political commissar' has been replaced by a 'people's servant', so this is your chance to steer this magnificent institution away from the icebergs – this is your defining moment!

The aim of this letter is to raise two issues;

1. the illegally constituted South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)

2. my unfair, illegal and unconstitutional dismissal.

The attached letters will clarify these issues, but with regard to the former, it is worrying that the response from the Deputy Speaker was off the mark. The SAHRC will remain illegal, because of the inaccurate advice from Parliament's incompetent Legal and Committee sections.

The latter issue will be resolved, in one of two ways: through dialogue or litigation. Litigation will entail arguments in the High Court and Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of Parliament's Apartheid-era policy [2]; criminal charges, in terms of the SAHRC Act against Merrs Dingani, September and Tabata; criminal charges, in terms of the Labour Relations Act against Mr September [3]; and a civil suit against Merrs Dingani, September and Tabata.

I believe that you are a Peacemaker and wish to invite you to the table to discuss my grievance, so that the matter can be settled out of court and the media. This will be to the benefit of the demoralised staff, concerned public and anxious new MPs. The little of Parliament's reputation will be saved and the vision of a 'People's Parliament' can be vigorously pursued with the full support of the staff, MPs and the South African People.

Enclosed, please find the following letters/documents;

1. Letter to Speaker (20 Jan 2009)

2. Letter from Deputy Speaker (11 Feb 2009)

3. Document to SAHRC (Ms Sterris - 9 May 2008)

4. Letter (To whom it may concern - 9 Mar 2009)

I would appreciate 'an answer to dialogue' by the end of Human Rights Month [4].

Thank you

Yours faithfully

(signed)

G CAMPHER

Tel: 021 123 456

Cel: 073 123 456

E-mail: 123 456

NOTES:

1. Book of Matthew, Verse 5:9 (The Bible)

2. That is the generally unknown policy that was applied to me - signed and approved copy that is no where to be found!

3. There is prima facie evidence that he lied to the CCMA about the said policy

4. That is 31 March 2009.

* This fax was not responded to.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

FAX

TO: Mr Eric Mokonyama (Investigator: Head Office-SAHRC)

FROM: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 17 March 2009

SUBJECT: Another Human Rights Violation

COVER: 1 (incl. cover)

Dear Eric

I just want to inform you that another South African was fired today by Parliament (RSA), because her name appeared on the Independent Electoral Commission's 'List of Candidates'. She was on the candidates' list of COPE for the National Assembly.

The trauma of being dismissed that this South African has to experience could have been prevented, if the SAHRC performed its function with the necessary vigour and commitment and brought my case to its logical conclusion.

I faxed a letter to you on 10 March 2009, but did not receive any feedback on the desire of Ms Bahia Sterris to 'dump' the case on you. Please respond.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

17 March 2009

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 403 2240

Facsimile: +27 21 403 2604

Dear Mr Campher

Political Oppression of Staff

I refer to the memorandum dated 6 March 2009 on the above matter.

Please be informed that Parliament of the RSA has forwarded a written response to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on 9 March 2009. You are welcome to contact the office of the SAHRC regarding the contents of our letter.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

MB COETZEE

ACTING SECRETARY OF PARLIAMENT

\-----------------------------------------------------------

FACSIMILE

TO: MS J COHEN [Acting Office Manager – SAHRC (Western Cape Office)]

FAX: 021 – 426 2875

FROM : GABRIEL CAMPHER (Former employee & South African citizen)

DATE: 20 MARCH 2009

SUBJECT: YET ANOTHER FAX!

Dear Ms Cohen

I have been communicating (letters, faxes, phone calls, walk-ins) quite a lot with the SAHRC (Cape Town and Johannesburg) over the last three years. On Friday, 6 March 2009, I 'celebrated' my third anniversary of being dismissed by Parliament and tomorrow, 21 March 2009, is also yet another Human Rights Day. I should be frustrated and despondent by the pathetic treatment that I received form Parliament and even more so by the SAHRC. However, it strengthens me, because in the end, our democracy and human rights will not be defended and protected by Constitutional Bodies, like the SAHRC, but by active and vigilant citizens, like myself.

The purpose of this letter is very simple. In the light of the ;disinterested' and unprofessional manner in which my case was dealt with, I need written confirmation that in the opinion of the SAHRC the investigation should be terminated, because there is no evidence to support you r initial indication (20 April 2007) that there was prima facie evidence of a human rights violation. See the attached fax (10 March 2009) to Head Office that was not responded to.

I will appreciate a written response by 31 March 2009. Failure will indicate that you concur with my analysis of your disinterested stance.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

Tel: 021 123 456

Cel: 073 123 456

E-mail: 123@456...

\-----------------------------------------------------------

FACSIMILE

TO: MR MB COETZEE (Acting Secretary to Parliament- RSA)

FAX: 021 – 403 2604

FROM: GABRIEL CAMPHER (Former employee & South African citizen)

DATE: 27 MARCH 2009

SUBJECT: FRIENDLY REMINDER

Dear Mr Coetzee

I hereby wish to formally remind you that non-cooperation with an investigation of the South African Human Rights Commission is a criminal offence, in terms of section 18 of the Human Rights Commission Act. I will raise two issues.

Firstly, in your letter, dated 17 March 2009, you indicated that you forwarded a response to the SAHRC on 9 March 2009, in connection with the Memorandum of the West Bank Greens, dated 6 March 2009. This raises a sceptical question: "Why send a response to the SAHRC when the Greens required an answer?" Be it as it may, I contacted the SAHRC (Cape Town and Johannesburg) and Mr Peter Lebeko (Manager: Office of the Secretary of Parliament \- RSA). Surprise, surprise; they have no copy of this letter!

Secondly, a response to the letter (17 February 2009) of Mr Leo McAuley (SAHRC – Legal Intern) to Mr Dingani (suspended) [1] Secretary for Parliament), is still outstanding, even though the deadline was 6 March 2009. Mr McAuley made a request for supporting documents of Parliament's policy that 'staff members are prohibited from standing for public office'. The fact that you do not want to provide this information in a free and open society, indicates that Parliament is hiding something – maybe the truth will expose the violation of the employees' constitutional rights.

It is unfortunate that the SAHRC does not pursue this investigation, which goes to the heart of our democracy, with the necessary vigour and commitment, as per the Constitution, i.e. without fear, favour and prejudice. Normally, a citizen would have given up, because not even the Constitutional Body that is supposed to protect his human rights is committed to the cause. I, however will not give up, because it will make a mockery of the sacrifices of the thousands of South African heroes, who faced the brutality of the Colonial and Apartheid machinery to fight for our human rights. This includes Madiba, who spend 27 years in prison, so that we can be free [2]. The struggle continues! Aluta continua! [3]

In conclusion, I humbly request that you forward a copy of your letter, dated 9 March 2009 to West Bank Greens and a response to Mr McAuley's letter to Mr Eric Mokonyama (SAHRC - Provincial Coordinator) and myself by 31 March 2009. Failure will indicate that (a) Parliament disrespects civil society and (b) does not want to cooperate with an investigation of the SAHRC and that it dares the Commission to use its legal powers to lay criminal charges against Mr September, Mr Tabata and yourself!

Mr Mokonyama's contact details are;

E-mail: emokonyama@sahrc.org.za

Fax: (011) 484 1360

Tel: (011) 484 8300

Thanking you in advance.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

Tel: 021 123 456

Cel: 073 123 456

E-mail: 123 456

Website: 123 456

NOTES:

1. As you know, Mr Dingani was suspended by the Presiding Officers for financial misconduct, which is a criminal offence in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (Act 1, 1999).

2. I want to look my children in the eye and say that I did something to secure their future in a free South Africa.

3. Even though the SAHRC does not perform its functions as it should, there are other ways to bring Human Right Violators to book in a free and democratic South Africa.

Copy to:

Mr Eric Mokonyama (Provincial Coordinator - SAHRC)

Adv Dalene Franzman (Head: Legal Services - SAHRC)

Ms Judith Cohen (Acting Head: W-Cape Office \- SAHRC)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

DYKMAN ATTORNEYS

attorneys, notaries and conveyancers

PO Box 3183

124 Adderley Street

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 426 1871/2/3

Facsimile: +27 21 423 2593

Our reference: DD/ck/W03435

Your reference: WC/26/459

Date: 30 March 2009

THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Per Telefax: (021) 426 2875

ATT: Bahia Sterris

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: COMPLAINT: GABRIEL CAMPHER

We confirm that we act on the instructions of the abovementioned client who lodged a complaint with your Commission under the above-mentioned reference number.

We have at hand your letter dated 17 February 2009, which was addressed to the Secretary to Parliament and which called for a response on or before 6 March 2009.

Kindly advise whether Parliament responded to your request within the stipulated period and, if not, which steps you have taken to ensure compliance.

If Parliament has indeed replied then and in any event kindly advise whether your Commission intends utilizing the provisions of sections 7 or 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 9Act 54 of 1994) ('The Act') in order to bring finality to this longstanding complaint.

Client is disappointed at the length of time it has taken for your Commission to deal with his complaint and accordingly we are instructed to advise that unless a satisfactory response to our correspondence is received by no later than close of business on 15 April 2009, client shall be obliged to approach the Court in order to enforce your compliance with the Act.

We trust that this shall not be necessary and we await to hear from you within the stipulated period.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

D. DYKMAN

Dykman Attorneys

\-----------------------------------------------------------

DYKMAN ATTORNEYS

attorneys, notaries and conveyancers

PO Box 3183

124 Adderley Street

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 426 1871/2/3

Facsimile: +27 21 423 2593

Our reference: DD/ck/W03435

Your reference: WC/26/459

Date: 30 March 2009

THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Per Telefax: (011) 484 1360

ATT: Mr Mokonyama

Dear Sir,

RE: COMPLAINT: GABRIEL CAMPHER

We confirm that we act on the instructions of the abovementioned client who lodged a complaint with your Commission under the above-mentioned reference number.

We have at hand your letter dated 17 February 2009, which was addressed to the Secretary to Parliament and which called for a response on or before 6 March 2009.

Kindly advise whether Parliament responded to your request within the stipulated period and, if not, which steps you have taken to ensure compliance.

If Parliament has indeed replied then and in any event kindly advise whether your Commission intends utilizing the provisions of sections 7 or 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 9Act 54 of 1994) ('The Act') in order to bring finality to this longstanding complaint.

Client is disappointed at the length of time it has taken for your Commission to deal with his complaint and accordingly we are instructed to advise that unless a satisfactory response to our correspondence is received by no later than close of business on 15 April 2009, client shall be obliged to approach the Court in order to enforce your compliance with the Act.

We trust that this shall not be necessary and we await to hear from you within the stipulated period.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

D. DYKMAN

Dykman Attorneys

* Acknowledgement and Appreciation: Adv Dykman wrote these letters for free.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 403 2240

Facsimile: +27 21 403 2604

06 March 2009

[*I received this letter on 31 March 2009 from SAHRC, after my attorney's letter to them.]

South African Human Rights Commission

7th Floor ABSA Building

Adderley Street

Cape Town

8000

Your ref: WC/26/459

Attention: Mr L McCauley

Dear Mr McCauley

COMPLAINT – MR GABRIEL CAMPHER

Your letter dated 17 February 2009 refers.

Enclosed please find copies of the approved Policy Directives which was applicable in Mr Campher's case and the subsequent policy effective as of 01 July 20006.

Kindly be informed that there is no national legislation upon which the relevant Policy Directive is based. However, the motivation for the policy is to discourage employees from taking up other remunerative work without the necessary permission from the relevant authorities.

Further be informed that I have subsequently been advised about the unintended constitutional consequences brought by the relevant policy dated 01 July 2006. Our legal Office, together with our Policy Management Unit, is therefore in the process of reviewing this policy.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Mr ZA Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - April 2009

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 403 3980

Facsimile: +27 21 403 9462

02 April 2009

TO ALL STAFF

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF POLICY PROVISIONS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The policy provisions dealing with political participation, clause 8.4 under the Policy on Employee Conduct, as well as clause 8.1.7 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for managers and Designated Employees are herewith temporarily suspended. These policy provisions are in the process of being reviewed.

(signed)

M COETZEE

Acting Secretary to Parliament

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail

FROM: Albert Mamabolo [amambolo@parliament.gov.za]

SENT: April 03, 2009, 09:59 AM

TO: Patisa Sipamla

SUBJECT: DC Hearing

Dear Ms Sipamla

Note that in light of the info alert from the Acting Secretary to Parliament the disciplinary hearing against you scheduled for Tuesday, 7 April 2009 is cancelled.

Albert Mamabolo

Unit Manager: Committee Section

* The context of the e-mail (Albert Mamabolo to Patisa Sipamla)

The IEC would have issued the candidates' certificate on 7 April 2009, when the employee (Patisa Sipamla) would have been 'resigned' by Parliament. In terms of Parliament's policy, the employee resigns when he/she receives the candidature certificate from the IEC. This was effectively a dismissal in terms of the CCMA ruling in my case. It was known since early March that she was on COPE's candidate list for the National Assembly.

In my case the CCMA found that the 'resignation' was procedurally unfair, because Parliament did not give me a hearing. They thus hastily wanted to organise a 'hearing' for Patisa, before firing her on 7 April 2009 for exercising her constitutionally guaranteed political rights!

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail:

FROM: Gabriel Campher

SENT: Fri, April 3, 2009 1:47 pm

TO: Patisa Sipamla

SUBJECT: Re: Fwd: TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF POLICY PROVISIONS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Hi P,

Thanks.

They acknowledge that the current policy is unconstitutional - the same applies to the one that was applied to me and Abbas. They came to this 'conclusion' after three years' relentless pressure from my side – they knew it ALL along. The fight however does not stop here. They have to rectify their mistake and it is a demand that staff should push from within. I'm applying pressure from outside.

Regards

G

\-----------------------------------------------------------

>>> "Patisa Sipamla" wrote on 2009/04/03 12:08 >>>

Hi Gab

They MUST rectify their mistakes and we will continue the fight.

Regards

Patisa Sipamla

Sub-Committee on International Affairs

Tel: (021) 403 1234

Fax: (021) 403 1234

E-mail: 1234-5678

"We must learn to love each other as brothers or perish together as fools." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Parliament entrenching people-centred democracy in achieving development goals.

\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACSIMILE

TO: Ms Thandi Modise (Deputy Secretary-General – ANC)

FAX: 011 – 376 1100

FROM: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 7 April 2009

SUBJECT: Political Oppression

PAGES: 13 (incl. cover)

Hi Ms Modise

A belated congratulations on being elected as the Deputy Secretary-General of the ANC. Mr Zuma encapsulated my own feelings at today's media-conference, following the official withdrawal of the charges in court. These feelings relate to my family's and my own undignified experience at the hands of Parliament and the SA Human Rights Commission. I would appreciate your assistance to settle this three-year long struggle to restore justice and our dignity after the violation of my political rights.

Shamiel Abbas (ID candidate) and I (Independent Candidate) were 'resigned' by Parliament, because we transgressed a Parliamentary policy, when we stood in the 2006 Elections. The policy stated;

'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.

The CCMA found that it was a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (!) that there might be a 'prima facie' case. Since then they have been non-committal and 'easy fools' to Parliament's lies and tricks. After reviewing the July 2006 policy, Parliament still maintains that my rights were not violated by the (substantively same) March 2006 policy!

Attached, please find;

1. Newspaper article: 14 Mar 2006

2. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher (20 Apr 2007)

3. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament (26 Jan 2009)

4. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC (28 Jan 2009)

5. Letter: G Campher to Former Colleagues (19 Feb 2009)

6. Memo: West Bank Greens to Parliament (6 Mar 2009)

7. Fax: G Campher to S September (22 Jan 2009)

8. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament (17 Feb 2009)

9. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC (10 Mar 2009)

10. Fax: Parliament to SAHRC (faxed 9 Mar 2009) [I only obtained it on 31 Mar 2009 from SAHRC!]

11. Circular: Secretary to Staff Members (2 April 2009)

I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

Tel: 021- 1234-678

Fax: 086 1234-678

Cel: 073 1234789

E-mail: 1234-789

* I had a long professional relationship with Thandi Modise, which started when she became the chairperson of Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Defence. She is currently the Premier of the North West Province.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via Facsimile:

To: Mr S Abbas (Overberg Municipality)

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: 07 April 2009

Subject: Human rights

Hi Shamiel

I wrote letters to the SAHRC and Parliament, but to cut a long story short, herewith the last communiqués. By the way five employees' names are on the party lists – three have been intimidated to withdraw their candidacy before the IEC issues their certificates on 7 April 2009 (when they will be deemed 'resigned'). Parliament is applying pressure, before D-day, because they know that their policy is wanting. The other two are facing their political oppressor, i.e. Parliament. I'm assisting them, where possible.

Attached, please find:

1. Letter of SAHRC to Parliament (17 Feb 2009)

2. Fax of G Campher to SAHRC (10 Mar 2009)

3. Fax of Dykman Attorneys to SAHRC (30 Mar 2009)

4. Fax of Parliament to SAHRC (dated 6 March, but faxed 9 March 2009)

It is clear that Parliament is not providing the required amount of information, but they did acknowledge that their policy is unconstitutional. However the SAHRC does not want to pursue the matter with the necessary vigour and commitment. They had Parliament's fax of 9 March 2009 the whole time, without informing me. I only saw it yesterday, after my attorney's fax to them. I asked my attorney to take this matter to the court, if necessary, to force the SAHRC to DO their job! This will require money and I hope that you are still keen to see this thing through!

Please let me know.

Thanks

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

* At the time Abbas was working in the Overberg municipality as a political appointee of a new political party. He was interested in 'justice', but at the same time has moved on with his life.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: 08 April 2009 08:37 PM

To: fwdkfoun@mweb.co.za *

Subject: political rights

Dear Sir/Madam

FRIEND OF THE COURT **

Please forgive this unsolicited mail, but I (and our country) need your wisdom on a grave matter.

In March 2006, a colleague and I were 'resigned' by Parliament (RSA), when we transgressed a workplace policy. The policy stated; 'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily, with effect from the date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.

The CCMA found that it was not a resignation, but a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (two years ago!) that there might be a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was needed. Since then they have however been non-committal to perform their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. Parliament have been providing insufficient information or ignored the deadlines of the SAHRC to provide supporting documents to show that this policy was in line with the Constitution and/or national legislation. The SAHRC Act clearly states that it is a criminal offence not to cooperate with a SAHRC investigation.

It also provides the SAHRC with the necessary legal powers to ensure (force) the cooperation of individuals and state organs to provide the required assistance in support of the functioning of the SAHRC. It seems however that the SAHRC lacks the will to use these powers to protect its integrity, independence and impartiality, as per the Constitution and the Act

The abovementioned policy was changed in July 2006, but it remained substantively the same; 'An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.'

In early March 2009, the IEC published on its website the names of five employees of Parliament, who were on the candidate lists of political parties for the 2009 elections. Since then they were harassed by their managers to withdraw their candidacy before the IEC issued the certificates on 7 April 2009, otherwise they would be 'resigned'. Two of them refused to withdraw after I explained to them the unconstitutionality of the policy. On 2 April 2009, Parliament indicated that it had temporarily suspended the policy, after being bombarded by letters from the SAHRC and me. I also led a march on 6 March 2009 to highlight the political oppression of Parliament's employees.

Parliament is however adamant that the policy that was applied to me and my colleague did not violate our human rights, even thought the policy is substantively the same as the one that they are currently reviewing! The stance of the SAHRC on this development? Disinterest.

In my last letter (30 March 2009) to the SAHRC, written by my attorney, I asked whether it will use its legal powers to bring this matter to its logical conclusion, if not why not? Failure to respond by 15 April 2009, would lead to court action to obtain an order to force the SAHRC to perform its functions, as per the Constitution and the SAHRC Act.

We are of the view that the SAHRC will not respond favourably and is preparing for court action. We request your wisdom on this matter and would appreciate if you could act as a 'Friend of the Court' in this important matter, which goes to the core of our constitutional democracy.

If you need any further information, please contact us.

Yours faithfully

G CAMPHER

Tel: 021- 1234

Fax: 086 1234

Cel: 073 1234

E-mail: 1234

* This was the FW de Klerk Foundation. They did not respond to the letter.

** The (optimistic) aim of these letters was to get witnesses, if I ever get an opportunity to put my case before a court of law.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail:

\-----Original Message-----

Subject: RE: political rights

From: "Nichola de Havilland" ndehavilland@cfcr.org.za

Date: Tue, April 14, 2009 12:01 pm

To: Gabriel Campher

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Campher

It would seem that your anticipated court action will not be necessary as the Public Service Act and Regulations were amended with effect 20 March 2009 so as to provide for deemed resignation on the day immediately before the date of assumption of office. The amendment was published in Proclamation No R. 18 of 20 March 2009.

Yours sincerely,

Nichola de Havilland

Adv N de Havilland

Director: Centre for Constitutional Rights

* The recipient was not aware that the Parliamentary Service was not guided by the Public Service Act.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: G Campher

Sent: 09 April 2009 02:16 PM

To: Michelle Desai *

Subject: Friend of the Court

Dear Madam

FRIEND OF THE COURT

Please forgive this unsolicited mail, but I (and our country) need your wisdom on a grave matter.

In March 2006, a colleague and I were 'resigned' by Parliament (RSA), when we transgressed a workplace policy. The policy stated;

'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.'

The CCMA found that it was not a resignation, but a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (two years ago!) that there might be a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was needed. Since then they have however been non-committal to perform their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. Parliament have been providing insufficient information or ignored the deadlines of the SAHRC to provide supporting documents to show that this policy was in line with the Constitution and/or national legislation. The SAHRC Act clearly states that it is a criminal offence not to cooperate with a SAHRC investigation.

It also provides the SAHRC with the necessary legal powers to ensure (force) the cooperation of individuals and state organs to provide the required assistance in support of the functioning of the SAHRC. It seems however that the SAHRC lacks the will to use these powers to protect its integrity, independence and impartiality, as per the Constitution and the Act.

The abovementioned policy was changed in July 2006, but it remained substantively the same; 'An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.'

In early March 2009, the IEC published on its website the names of five employees of Parliament, who were on the candidate lists of political parties for the 2009 elections. Since then they were harassed by their managers to withdraw their candidacy before the IEC issued the certificates on 7 April 2009, otherwise they would be 'resigned'. Two of them refused to withdraw after I explained to them the unconstitutionality of the policy. On 2 April 2009, Parliament indicated that it had temporarily suspended the policy, after being bombarded by letters from the SAHRC and me. I also led a march on 6 March 2009 to highlight the political oppression of Parliament's employees.

Parliament is however adamant that the policy that was applied to me and my colleague did not violate our human rights, even thought the policy is substantively the same as the one that they are currently reviewing! The stance of the SAHRC on this development? Disinterest.

In my last letter (30 March 2009) to the SAHRC, written by my attorney, I asked whether it will use its legal powers to bring this matter to its logical conclusion, if not why not? Failure to respond by 15 April 2009, would lead to court action to obtain an order to force the SAHRC to perform its functions, as per the Constitution and the SAHRC Act.

In the event that the SAHRC does not respond favourably, we would appreciate your wisdom on this matter, as well as your willingness to act as a 'Friend of the Court' in this important matter, which goes to the core of our constitutional democracy.

If you need any further information, please contact us.

Yours faithfully

G CAMPHER

Tel: 021- 1234

Fax: 086 1234

Cel: 073 1234

E-mail: 123@4456

* She was from the Open Democracy Advice Centre.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

Subject: RE: Friend of the Court

From: "Michelle Desai" Michelle@opendemocracy.org.za

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: Tue, April 14, 2009 8:48 am

Priority: Normal

Dear sir or madam

I have just read your mail below ad acknowledge the content thereof. Please note that I have referred it to Ms A Tilley, the CEO of the Centre for her decision as to whether ODAC will assist or not.

I will revert as soon as I receive feedback from A Tilley.

Michelle Desai

ODAC

\-----------------------------------------------------------

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel Campher

To: "Pierre De Vos"

Date: Thu, April 9, 2009

Dear Prof De Vos

FRIEND OF THE COURT

Please forgive this unsolicited mail, but I (and our country) need your wisdom on a grave matter.

In March 2006, a colleague and I were 'resigned' by Parliament (RSA), when we transgressed a workplace policy. The policy stated; 'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.'

The CCMA found that it was not a resignation, but a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (two years ago!) that there might be a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was needed. Since then they have however been non-committal to perform their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. Parliament have been providing insufficient information or ignored the deadlines of the SAHRC to provide supporting documents to show that this policy was in line with the Constitution and/or national legislation. The SAHRC Act clearly states that it is a criminal offence not to cooperate with a SAHRC investigation.

It also provides the SAHRC with the necessary legal powers to ensure (force) the cooperation of individuals and state organs to provide the required assistance in support of the functioning of the SAHRC. It seems however that the SAHRC lacks the will to use these powers to protect its integrity, independence and impartiality, as per the Constitution and the Act.

The abovementioned policy was changed in July 2006, but it remained substantively the same; 'An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.'

In early March 2009, the IEC published on its website the names of five employees of Parliament, who were on the candidate lists of political parties for the 2009 elections. Since then they were harassed by their managers to withdraw their candidacy before the IEC issued the certificates on 7 April 2009, otherwise they would be 'resigned'. Two of them refused to withdraw after I explained to them the unconstitutionality of the policy. On 2 April 2009, Parliament indicated that it had temporarily suspended the policy, after being bombarded by letters from the SAHRC and me. I also led a march on 6 March 2009 to highlight the political oppression of Parliament's employees.

Parliament is however adamant that the policy that was applied to me and my colleague did not violate our human rights, even thought the policy is substantively the same as the one that they are currently reviewing! The stance of the SAHRC on this development? Disinterest.

In my last letter (30 March 2009) to the SAHRC, written by my attorney, I asked whether it will use its legal powers to bring this matter to its logical conclusion, if not why not? Failure to respond by 15 April 2009, would lead to court action to obtain an order to force the SAHRC to

perform its functions, as per the Constitution and the SAHRC Act.

We are of the view that the SAHRC will not respond favourably and is preparing for court action. We request your wisdom on this matter and would appreciate if you could act as a 'Friend of the Court' in this important matter, which goes to the core of our constitutional democracy.

If you need any further information, please contact us.

Yours faithfully

G CAMPHER

Tel: 021- 1234

Fax: 086 1234

Cel: 073 1234

E-mail: 123@1234

* Prof De Vos was at the Law Department of the University of the Western Cape (UWC)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

\-----Original Message-----

Subject: RE: political rights

From: "Pierre De Vos"

Date: Thu, April 9, 2009 12:15 pm

To: G Campher

Priority: Normal

Hi

I am at the airport on my way on a trip abroad so cannot respond now. If you contact me after 20 April I will see what I can do.

Best wishes.

Prof. Pierre de Vos

Department of Public Law and Jurisprudence

Law Faculty

University of Western Cape

Private Bag X17

Bellville, 7535

Blog: http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za

* I forgot to contact him, because other pressures of life (marriage, fatherhood, etc).

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

\-----Original Message-----

Subject: Friend of the Court

From: "Rushni Salie"

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: Thu, April 30, 2009 3:36 pm

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Campher

I acknowledge receipt of your email to Professor Asmal of 9 April 2009.

Prof Asmal has been in hospital for the past fortnight and is recuperating. He will therefore not be in a position to appear in court at present due to doctor's orders.

Yours sincerely

Rushni

Ms Rushni Salie

Personal Assistant to Professor Kader Asmal

University of the Western Cape

Private Bag X17, Bellville, 7535

Tel: 021 959 3310

Fax: 021 959 9287

\-----------------------------------------------------------

20 April 2009

Prof GJ Gerwel

Chairperson: Board of Trustees

Nelson Mandela Foundation

Private Bag X 70000

Houghton

2198

Dear Prof Gerwel

NEVER AGAIN

Please forgive this unsolicited mail, but I (and our country) need your wisdom on a grave matter. When Mr Mandela (Madiba) sacrificed his freedom for our freedom and when he was released 27 years later, he said; "Never again will one person oppress another in this country". I am afraid that nightmare has been real for the last three years. This letter concerns the political oppression of Parliament's employees and the shameful reaction of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC).

In March 2006, a colleague and I [1] were 'resigned' by Parliament (RSA), when we transgressed a generally unknown workplace policy. The policy stated;

'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.'

The CCMA found that it was not a resignation, but a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (exactly two years ago!) that there was a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was needed. Since then they have however been non-committal to execute their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. Parliament deliberately provided insufficient information or ignored the deadlines of the SAHRC to provide supporting documents to show that this policy was in line with the Constitution and/or national legislation. The Human Rights Commission Act (Act 54, 1994) clearly states that it is a criminal offence not to cooperate with a SAHRC investigation. It also provides the SAHRC with the necessary legal powers to ensure (force) the cooperation of individuals and state organs to provide the required assistance in support of the execution of its constitutional mandate. It seems however that the SAHRC lacks the ethical and political will to use these powers to protect its integrity, independence and impartiality, as per the Constitution and the Act.

The above-mentioned policy was changed in July 2006, because I pointed out to Parliament that some employees were members of statutory bodies (School Governing Bodies and Community Police Forums) and were unknowingly contravening this policy. These bodies were established in terms of the South African Schools Act and the South African Police Act, respectively. These staff members participated in these bodies, because they wanted to strengthen their communities by taking ownership of our hard fought democracy. The same reason why my colleague and I stood in the elections.

The amended policy however remained substantively the same;

'An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.'

In early March 2009, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) published, on its website, the names of five employees of Parliament, who were on the candidate lists of political parties for the 2009 elections. Since then, these employees have been harassed by their managers to withdraw their candidacy before the IEC issued the certificates on 7 April 2009, when they would be 'resigned'. Two of them refused to withdraw, after I explained to them the unconstitutionality of the policy. On 2 April 2009, Mr Coetzee, the acting Secretary to Parliament [2], 'temporarily suspended' the policy, after numerous letters from me explaining the unconstitutionality of the policy. I also led a march on 6 March 2009 to highlight the political oppression of Parliament's employees.

Parliament is however adamant that the policy that was applied to me and my colleague did not violate our human rights, even though the policy is substantively the same as the one that they are currently reviewing! The stance of the SAHRC to this new development? Disinterest.

In my last letter (30 March 2009) to the SAHRC, written by my attorney, I asked whether it will use its legal powers to bring my case to its logical conclusion; if not, why not? Failure to respond by 15 April 2009, would lead to court action to obtain an order to force the SAHRC to perform its functions, as per the Constitution and its own act. This date has passed, but still the SAHRC does not own up to its mandate. Unfortunately, one has to be rich to enforce ones constitutional rights, if the institution that was created to fight for us does not have the ethical and political will to perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice.

Enclosed, please find the following;

1. Article: Cape Times- 14 Mar 2006

2. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 23 Jun 2006

3. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher- 20 April 2007

4. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 9 May 2008

5. Fax: G Campher to September- 22 Jan 2009

6. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament- 26 Jan 2009

7. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC- 28 Jan 2009

8. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament- 17 Feb 2009

9. Memorandum: G Campher to Parliament- 6 Mar 2009

10. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC- 6 Mar 2009

11. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC- 10 Mar 2009

12. Letter: Dykman Attorneys to SAHRC- 30 Mar 2009

13. Circular: Coetzee to Staff- 2 Apr 2009

I would appreciate your guidance in this important matter, which goes to the core of our constitutional democracy.

If you need any further information, please contact us.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

E-mail: 345@2345

[*Prof Gerwel did not respond to this letter. He was the Vice-Chancellor of UWC (my alma mater), before moving to the Nelson Mandela Foundation. ]

NOTES:

1. My colleague (Independent Democrats) and I (Independent candidate) stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government Elections.

2. As you are aware Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament and Accounting Officer, was suspended for dereliction of duty, because he openly allowed fraud, corruption and nepotism by senior managers to plague the institution.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

23 April 2009

Adv L Mushwana

The Public Protector

4th Floor

51 Wale Street

Cape Town

8000

Dear Adv Mushwana

PREJUDICIAL CONDUCT: PARLIAMENT & SAHRC

I hereby wish to request that your office investigate the conduct of Parliament (RSA) and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), in terms of section 182 (1) of the Constitution (Act 108, 1996) and sections 6(4)(a)(ii) and 6(4)(a)(v) of the Public Protector Act (Act 23, 1994).

In March 2006, a colleague and I [1] were 'resigned' by Parliament (RSA), when we transgressed a generally unknown workplace policy. The policy stated;

'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.'

The CCMA found that it was not a resignation, but a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality [2] of the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (two years ago!) that there was a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was needed. Since then, they have however been non-committal to execute their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice'.

Parliament deliberately provided insufficient information or ignored the deadlines of the SAHRC to provide supporting documents to show that this policy was in line with the Constitution and/or national legislation. The Human Rights Commission Act (Act 54, 1994) provides the SAHRC with the legal powers to ensure (force) the cooperation of individuals and state organs to provide the required assistance in support of the execution of its constitutional mandate, i.e. it is a criminal offence not to cooperate with a SAHRC investigation.

On that basis I (not the SAHRC!) laid a complaint with the South African Police Service, but it indicated that it would be 'difficult' to show criminal intent. It seems that the SAHRC lacks the ethical and political will to use its powers to protect its integrity, independence and impartiality, as per the Constitution and its own Act.

The above-mentioned policy was changed in July 2006, because I pointed out to Parliament that some employees were members of statutory bodies (School Governing Bodies and Community Police Forums) and were unknowingly contravening this policy [3]. These bodies were established in terms of the South African Schools Act and the South African Police Act, respectively.

The amended policy however remained substantively the same;

'An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.'

In early March 2009, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) published, on its website, the names of five employees of Parliament, who were on the candidate lists of political parties for the 2009 elections. Since then, these employees have been harassed by their managers to withdraw their candidacy before the IEC issued the certificates on 7 April 2009, when they would be 'resigned'. Two of them refused to withdraw, after I explained to them the unconstitutionality of the policy. On 2 April 2009, Mr Coetzee, the acting Secretary to Parliament [4], 'temporarily suspended' the policy, after numerous faxes from me arguing the unconstitutionality of the policy. I also led a protest march on 6 March 2009 [5] to highlight the political oppression of Parliament's employees.

Parliament is however adamant that the policy that was applied to me and my colleague did not violate our human rights, even though the (old) March 2006 and (suspended) July 2006 policies are substantively the same! The stance of the SAHRC to this new development? Disinterest!

In my last letter (30 March 2009) to the SAHRC, written by my attorney, I asked whether it will use its legal powers to bring my case to its logical conclusion; if not, why not? The deadline (15 April 2009) for a response has passed, which indicates the SAHRC's lack of respect for the Constitution and its own Law [6].

Enclosed, please find the following;

1. Letter: Parliament to G Campher- 6 March 2006

2. Letter: G Campher to Parliament- 7 March 2006

3. Letter: Parliament to G Campher- 3 May 2006

4. Newspaper Article: Cape Times- 14 March 2006

5. Letter: Prof Asmal to ZA Dingani- 20 March 2006

6.Letter: G Campher to Parliament- 6 December 2006

7. Letter: G Campher to ConCourt- 10 May 2006

8. Letter: ConCourt to G Campher- 29 May 2006

9. CCMA Award- 10 September 2006

10. Policy- 6 March 2006 (applicable at this time)

11. Policy- 1 July 2006 (enforcement date)

12. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 23 June 2006

13. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 18 September 2006

14. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 7 November 2006

15. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher- 20 April 2007

16. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 30 August 2007

17. Letter: G Campher to Speaker- 21 January 2008

18 Letter: G Campher to Chair (NCoP)- 21 January 2008

19. Letter: Speaker's Office to G Campher- 21 February 2008

20. Letter: Prof Asmal to SAHRC- 25 January 2008

21. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament- 4 Feb 2008

22. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC- 11 Feb 2008

23. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher- 20 March 2008

24. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 11 April 2008

25. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 9 May 2008

26. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 22 July 2008

27. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC- 19 September 2008

28. E-mail: G Campher to SAHRC- 9 October 2008

29. E-mail: SAHRC to G Campher- 17 October 2008

30. Criminal Charges- 22 December 2008

31. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC- 20 January 2009

(a) Letter from ConCourt

(b) Letter from SAPS

32. Fax: G Campher to Parliament- 22 January 2009

33. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament- 26 Jan 2009

34. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC- 28 Jan 2009

35. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament- 17 Feb 2009

36. Fax: G Campher to Parliament- 19 Feb 2009

37. Memorandum: G Campher to Parliament- 6 Mar 2009

38. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC- 10 Mar 2009

39. Fax: G Campher to Parliament- 13 March 2009

40. Letter: Parliament to G Campher- 17 March 2009

41. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC- 20 March 2009

42. Fax: SAHRC to G Campher- 25 March 2009

43. Fax: G Campher to Parliament- 27 March 2009

44. Letter: Dykman Attorneys to SAHRC- 30 Mar 2009

45. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC- 6 Mar 2009

46. Circular: M Coetzee to Staff- 2 Apr 2009

47. E-Mail: Manager to P Sipamla (COPE)- 3 Apr 2009

I would appreciate your intervention in this important matter, which goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy. The dignity and integrity of two critical Constitutional Bodies, as well as that of a private citizen, are at stake.

If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

E-mail: 1234

Fax: 1234

Cel: 1234

[* The Public Protector responded on 26 August 2009]

NOTES:

1. My colleague (Independent Democrats) and I (Independent candidate) stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government Elections.

2. "Every adult citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office" (section 19(3)(b), Constitution)

3. These employees were NOT 'resigned'! This clearly indicates that Parliament applied its (illegal and unconstitutional) policy prejudicially and inconsistently.

4. As you are aware, Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament and Accounting Officer, was suspended for dereliction of duty, because he openly allowed fraud, corruption and nepotism by senior managers to plague the institution.

5. The third anniversary of my illegal and unconstitutional dismissal.

6. "[The SAHRC is] independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law, and [it] must be impartial and must exercise [its] powers and perform [its] functions without fear, favour or prejudice." (section 181(2), Constitution)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - May 2009

07 May 2009

Mr M Sisulu, MP

Speaker - National Assembly

Parliament (RSA)

P O Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Speaker

IN DEFENCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY

Congratulations on being elected as Speaker of the People's Parliament, as envisaged in the Freedom Charter. I am however afraid that our Parliament is not people-centred, but an oppressor of the political rights of its employees. I wish to raise two issues; (a) my unconstitutional dismissal by Parliament and (b) the illegally constituted Human Rights Commission.

ISSUE 1

A colleague and I were fired by Parliament (RSA), when we stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government Elections. I referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). It pronounced on 20 April 2007 that there was a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was necessary. Since then they have been non-committal to execute their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice' (see the letter to the Public Protector).

ISSUE 2

The SAHRC is illegally constituted. See enclosed letters (2 & 3).

Enclosed, please find the following;

1. Letter: G Campher to Public Protector - 23 Apr 2009

2. Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (SAHRC) \- 29 Apr 2009

3. Legal Opinion (State Law Advisers) - 18 Dec 2008

FREEDOM AT LAST?

My struggle over the last three years culminated on 6 March 2009 in the first (and hopefully last) protest march TO Parliament AGAINST the political oppression of Parliament's employees. This result - the suspension of the unconstitutional workplace policy and two employees' candidature for the National Assembly in the 2009 general election!!

I would appreciate your intervention in these matters, because it goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy – a democracy for which many heroes & heroines gave their freedom; even their lives.

If you need any further information, please contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-----------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

(PROVINCIAL OFFICE: WESTERN CAPE)

P.O. Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Our Ref: 7/2-12452/09/WC

Mr G Campher

BELHAR

7493

21 May 2009

Dear Mr Campher

RE: YOUR COMPLAINT

Receipt of your complaint is hereby acknowledged.

The matter you have raised will be assessed to establish whether the law allows us to investigate your complaint. As soon as this process is complete, we shall revert to you and advise you accordingly. If we can investigate, you will be informed of the identity of your investigator and what action we are taking.

Kindly note that, if you are considering instituting a civil claim against any government institution or agency, by law they must be notified within 6 months of the date of the incident complained of. A complaint lodged with the Office of the Public Protector does not interrupt this period. Should you not be sure of how the above might affect your remedies against the institution that you are complaining about, please contact us for clarification. Please note, however, that this Office cannot litigate on your behalf or represent you in any legal proceedings. You should consult an Attorney of your choice.

Kindly advise this Office if there are any changes in your contact details.

With kind regards

Yours truly,
(Signed)

PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVE: WESTERN CAPE

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - June 2009

Via E-mail

FROM: Gabriel Campher

TO: info@cfcr.org.za

DATE: 04 June 2009

SUBJECT: Human Rights

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to establish whether your organisation (Centre for Constitutional Rights) assists citizens with Human Rights complaints, especially of these complaints are not pursued by the SAHRC "without fear, favour or prejudice", as per the Constitution. The SAHRC indicated two years ago that there was a prima facie case that two citizens' rights were violated, but have since then stalled the investigation.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

>>>>CFCR>>>responded

FROM: Centre for Constitutional Rights <intern@cfcr.org.za>

TO: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 15 June 2009

SUBJECT: RE: Human Rights

Apologies, this PC was not monitored for a period of time and your message has only today been forwarded to Adv de Havilland (director of the Centre).

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail

FROM: Gabriel Campher

TO: jacob@lhr.org.za

DATE: 04 June 2009

SUBJECT: Human Rights

Dear Sir

I wish to establish whether your organisation (Lawyers for Human Rights) assists citizens with Human Rights complaints, especially of these complaints are not pursued by the SAHRC "without fear, favour or prejudice", as per the Constitution. The SAHRC indicated two years ago that there was a prima facie case that two citizens' rights were violated, but have since then stalled the investigation.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail:

FROM: Jacob van Garderen

TO: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 4 June 2009

SUBJECT: RE: Human Rights

Dear Gabriel

It largely depends on whether we have expertise and resources to assist. If you could give me more information I will be able to give you a better idea to what extend we could assist.

Best wishes

Jacob van Garderen

National Director

Lawyers for Human Rights

357 Visagie Street

Pretoria

\-----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail:

FROM: Gabriel Campher

TO: jacob@lhr.org.za

DATE: 04 June 2009

SUBJECT: RE: Human Rights

ATTACHMENTS: Public Protector.doc; Speaker.Sisulu.doc.

Dear Mr Van Garderen

Thanks for the lightning response.

There are two issues;

1. I believe that the SAHRC is illegally constituted (should have 11, not 6 commissioners). This has serious implications for the work of the SAHRC, as well as its 'dignity and effectiveness', as per the Constitution.

2. Two citizens' rights were violated and the SAHRC did not pursue its constitutional mandate. I have engaged Parliament and the SAHRC since 7 March 2006 and hand-delivered a complaint to the Public Protector (PP) on 23 April 2009. I'm worried about the PP, because I received a letter on 2 June 2009, in which they stated that they are (still!) investigating whether the PP can deal with the case in terms of the law. By this time I should have had a case number! I have not received any feedback from the Speaker.

I know that you cannot get 'involved' at this stage, but I would appreciate it if the LHR can 'watch over' this case, which in my opinion goes to the heart of constitutionalism and human rights in a FREE South Africa.

If you need more information, please forward your postal address.

Thanks again

G Campher

[* I did not receive another response from the LHR]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail

FROM: Gabriel Campher

TO: angela@lrc.org.za

DATE: 04 June 2009

SUBJECT: Human Rights

Dear Madam

I wish to establish whether your organisation (Legal Resources Centre) assists citizens with Human Rights complaints, especially of these complaints are not pursued by the SAHRC "without fear, favour or prejudice", as per the Constitution. The SAHRC indicated two years ago that there was a prima facie case that two citizens' rights were violated, but have since then stalled the investigation.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - July 2009

Via E-mail:

FROM: Angela Andrews < angela@lrc.org.za >

TO: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 10 July 2009

SUBJECT: RE: Human Rights

Hi. Sorry I did not reply to this email.

You can call me next week at (021) 481 3000, if you still want to pursue it. We have a limited range of work we are funded to do.

Angela

[* Matters got hectic at work and fortunately or unfortunately I never phoned her. I was a union shop steward and was fighting unfair and unethical labour practices on behalf of fellow workers, apart from my regular work.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-Mail:

FROM: Meambrey Mbatha [Office of the Public Protector]

SENT: July 22, 2009

TO: Gabriel Campher

SUBJECT: Progress Report

Dear Mr. Campher

I phoned Alfred checking when was the file referred to Head Office. Apparently the file is still with them not been transferred yet. He will call you and update with the progress. I hope you will hear from Alfred soon.

We apologies for inconvenience

Kind regards

Thanks

Meambrey Mbatha

Secretary to Chief Investigator: Adv De Waal

Office of the Public Protector

Quote: "learn to love who He has made you to be"

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-Mail to Office of the Public Protector

FROM: Gabriel Campher

SENT: July 22, 2009

TO: Meambrey Mbatha

SUBJECT: RE: Progress Report

Dear Ms Mbatha

Thanks for the quick feedback. I also hope to hear from Mr Lose soon.

Best regards

G Campher

\-----------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Alfred Lose [alfredl@pprotect.org]

SENT: July 22, 2009

TO: Gabriel Campher

SUBJECT: Your complaint against the SAHRC and SA Parliament

Dear Sir

Please be informed that the referral of the complaint to our Head office has taken longer than initially anticipated, because of outstanding responses which were awaiting from the SAHRC. We are dispatching the complaint by courier. We apologize for the inconvenience. You can expect to hear from our Head Office soon.

With kind regards

Thanks

Alfred Lose

(Office of the Public Protector)

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - August 2009

06 August 2009

Adv NA Ramathlodi, MP

Chairperson

Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Adv Ramathlodi

TROUBLE-MAKER FOR THE GOOD

On 18 July 2009, the first 'Mandela Day' was held to celebrate the contributions of former President Mandela and others (including Mr Walter Sisulu, the father of the current Speaker of Parliament). It was asked that we spend 67 minutes on that day to improve the life of another person, because Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Madiba) spend 67 years of his life fighting to improve the lives of South Africans.

It is interesting that Rolihlahla means 'trouble-maker' - I am certain that the best way to 'repay' Madiba (and I am sure that he will approve) is for South Africans (and the world) to be 'trouble-makers' for justice, truth, freedom and democracy. After all, he was the greatest 'trouble-maker for the good' [1] of the 20th century.

I wish to raise three issues;

1. the unfair, illegal and unconstitutional dismissal of two employees of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, who stood in the 2006 Local Government elections,

2. the illegally constituted South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and

3. an amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act ( Act 54, 1994).

ISSUE 1 – VIOLATION OF POLITICAL RIGHTS

A colleague and I were fired by Parliament (RSA), when we stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government Elections. I referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). It pronounced on 20 April 2007 that there was a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was necessary. Since then they have been non-committal to execute their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. This matter is currently before the Public Protector, so I will not elaborate on the matter here. This should be raised with them when they table their annual report in Parliament [2].

ISSUE 2 – ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

The SAHRC is illegally constituted (see attachments for details). I wrote numerous letters to the 'powers that be', but their responses were below par. Some did not even bother to respond, like Mr Sisulu, the Speaker of the National Assembly. The chairperson of the SAHRC indicated on 22 May 2009 that he would discuss the 'illegally constituted SAHRC' with the Speaker – two months later and no feedback, yet! [3]

ISSUE 3 – SAHRC AMENDMENT BILL

The SAHRC is supposed to protect, support and strengthen our constitutional democracy by promoting and protecting fundamental human rights. It has a strong legislative framework, i.e. the Constitution (Act 108, 1996) [4] and the Human Rights Commission Act (Act 54, 1994). It is however clear the SAHRC does not have the political will and mechanisms to execute its constitutional mandate. I wish to propose an amendment [5] to the HRC Act to provide the necessary mechanism and teeth to beef up the functioning of the SAHRC (see attachment).

In conclusion, I wish to remind you that when you and your colleagues were sworn in as Members of Parliament, you swore or affirmed allegiance to the Constitution – you promised to put South Africa first. As such, we, the People of South Africa, put our faith in you, 'as freely elected representatives' [6] to 'build an effective People's Parliament, [as per the Freedom Charter,] that is responsive to the needs of the People...' [7].

The question can be asked, why do I pursue the above matters, when it is clear that the 'powers that be' are not interested? The answer: I am a 'trouble-maker for the good' and even if it takes 67 years, history will prove me right [8].

I, as a proud and patriotic South African would appreciate it if the Portfolio Committee can pursue the above-mentioned issues [9], because we need strong institutions (especially Parliament and the SAHRC) to strengthen our fragile constitutional democracy - a democracy for which many 'trouble-makers' gave their freedom; even their lives.

Enclosed, please find the following;

1. Letter: G Campher to Speaker Sisulu- 07 May 2009

(a) Letter: G Campher to Public Protector (no annexure)- 23 Apr 2009

(b) Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (SAHRC)- 29 Apr 2009

(c) Legal Opinion

2. Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (SAHRC)- 29 Apr 2009

(a) G Campher to Speaker Mahlangu-Nkabinde- 20 Jan 2009

(i) Interim Constitution

(ii) HRC Act

(iii) Interpretation Act

(b) Letter: Deputy Speaker to G Campher- 11 Feb 2009

(c) Letter: Speaker's Office to G Campher- 17 Mar 2009

3. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher- 22 May 2009

4. SAHRC Amendment Bill

If you need any further information, please do no hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER [M.Phil (Ethics)]

c.c.

Members: Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development

Mr JG Zuma: President of the Republic of South Africa

Mr M Sisulu, MP: Speaker – National Assembly (Parliament-RSA)

Mr J Kollapen: Chairperson – SAHRC

Adv L Mushwana: Public Protector

Prof K Asmal: Former chairperson of Parliament's Ad Hoc Committee on 'Ch. 9 Bodies'

Mr NR Mandela: Former President of the Republic of South Africa

NOTES:

1. Winston Churchill once said: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (people) to do nothing."

2. In fact, they should be summoned to Parliament to explain their disgraceful and unethical behaviour.

3. It is clear that the elected official (Mr Sisulu) and the appointed official (Mr Kollapen) DO NOT KNOW that they are ultimately accountable to the People of South Africa, which include Gabriel Campher.

4. Including the repealed Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993), because certain sections are still in force.

5. One cannot legislate for political will (moral integrity), but one can legislate for mechanisms to improve the work of the Commission.

6. From the mission of Parliament (RSA).

7. From the vision of Parliament (RSA).

8. Mark Twain once said: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

9. The first issue is being investigated by the Public Protector.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL

Thurs, 06 August 2009

Dear Ms Sisulu

I believe that the honour of your father, Mr Walter Sisulu, is at stake. In fact the honour of all 'trouble-makers' for the good is at stake.

My first and unfortunately only personal interaction with your father was at the 1994 ANC National Conference in Bloemfontein, where I was a branch delegate. Your father announced his retirement from public life, but conference was not at all pleased. When he stood at the podium to explain, he said: "I am merely retreating...in order to advance". It was met with laughter and silence, from those who knew him better than us.

After reflecting for more than a decade on your father's explanation, I came to the conclusion that one can write a book about it. It is a powerful sentence, because it illustrates the intellect of this giant. At a personal level it may mean that he is stepping back, so that he can 'advance' through his children. At a political level, it may mean that he, as a veteran of the struggle, is stepping back so that he can 'advance' through the next generation. At a philosophical level, it may mean...

My first interaction with your father was academically and politically at UWC during the tumultuous late 80's. I came to learn that he gave content and direction to the young Rolihlahla (Trouble-maker) and that struggle without content is futile. I also learned that a leader can and should, at times, lead from the back. Mostly, I learned that one should always be 'as radical as reality itself'...

I serviced the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Joint Standing Committee on Defence for almost ten years as a Committee Secretary, but was summarily fired when I stood as an independent candidate in the 2006 Local Government Elections (see attachments). It was a privileged and honour to work with leaders like Mr Yengeni and Ms Modise and especially with veterans like Merrs Henry Fazzie, Nelson Diale, Ike Maphoto and others. As social beings, our consciousness is shaped (for good) by others – more so by selfless "'trouble-makers' for freedom".

Attached, please find correspondence to the 'powers that be' on issues that are central to the struggle for freedom in South Africa.

I would appreciate your intervention, on a personal level, to resolve the issues raised in the attachments.

Thank you

Best regards

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[*The recipient did not respond. This letter was marked 'private and confidential', but the issues raised in it is in the public interest.]

\-----------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: Letter from Mr Kollapen

From: "Mamosadi Moletsane" <SAHRC>

To: G Campher

Date: Fri, August 14, 2009 2:25 pm

Dear Mr Campher

Enclosed find a letter from Mr Jody Kollapen for your perusal.

<<Mr Campher.pdf>>

Regards,

Sadi

Ms Sadi Moletsane

Office of the Chairperson: SAHRC

Private Bag X2700, Houghton, 2041

Tel: +27 11 484 8300, X 2115

Fax: +27 11 642 7057

Website: http://www.sahrc.org.za

ATTACHMENT:

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Private Bag X2700

Houghton

2041

Telephone: (011) 484 8300

Facsimile: (011) 484 7149

Website: http://www.sahrc.org.za

Our Ref: WC/26/456-bs

13 August 2009

Mr Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

RE: ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

I am writing to give you an update on the above-mentioned matter, subsequent to the letter you received from my office on the 22nd May 2009.

Kindly be informed that the South African Human Rights Commission met with the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the 8th July 2009. Your letter, which formed part of the agenda for the meeting was tabled and discussed with the Committee. The matter is now with the Committee and hope the necessary measures will be taken to address it.

I trust that you will find the above in order.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

for Jody Kollapen

Chairperson: The South African Human Rights Commission

\-----------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF MR VB NDLOVU, MP

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

14 August 2009

The Hon. Mr Max Vuyisile Sisulu, MP

Speaker of the National Assembly

Room 118

New Wing

Parliament

Dear Mr Speaker,

I am given to understand that you received a letter from Mr Gabriel Campher, dated 7 May 2009 and referenced "IN DEFENCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY". In this letter, Mr Campher draws your attention to two issues; the first relating to a prejudicial parliamentary workplace policy and the second to the manner in which the South African Human Rights Commission is constituted. My letter relates to the first issue.

According to Mr Campher, in March 2006 a parliamentary workplace policy existed which read: "If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Parliamentary Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he/she accepts such nomination or appointment."

In July 2006, this policy was amended to read as follows: "An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer."

On 2 April 2009, the Acting Secretary to Parliament temporarily suspended this policy. Please could you advise me why this policy was changed and why it was then suspended?

I am of the opinion that this policy may be unconstitutional. If that is the case, it should not merely be suspended, but scrapped altogether. Unfortunately, several members of parliamentary staff have been negatively affected by this policy and I believe corrective measures must be taken.

I am therefore considering tabling a 'Notice of a Motion' in the National Assembly.

I would, however, prefer to have your advice on this issue, in the absence of which I intend tabling the motion on 3 September 2009.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Mr Velaphi B Ndlovu, MP

(Inkatha Freedom Party)

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

FROM: Gabriel Campher

TO: Meambrey Mbatha (Office of the Public Protector)

DATE: 24 August 2009

SUBJECT: Progress

Hi Ms Mbatha

I wish to establish if you've made any progress with my case, taking into account that Parliament and the SAHRC are experts at 'delaying (i.e. justice denying) tactics'.

Thanks

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

\------------------------------------------------------------

<<<Meambrey Mbatha>>>>responded>>

Dear Gabriel Campher

I have forwarded your email to Mr Tefo Segoje, who will be investigating your complain. He will update you with the progress on your complain. Your file no. is 12452/09. Mr Segoje's contact details are as follows: 012-366 7017; email. tefos@pprotect.org

Hope you find this in order.

Kind regards

Meambrey

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

FROM: Tefo Segoje (Investigator: Public Protector)

TO: Gabriel Campher

DATE: 24 August 2009

SUBJECT: RE: FW: Progress

Dear Mr Campher

Your file was assigned to me on 17 August 2009.

We will update you about developments.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

Office of the Public Protector

\------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: Gabriel Campher

TO: Tefo Segoje (Investigator: Public Protector)

DATE: 24 August 2009 (13:52)

SUBJECT: RE: FW: Progress

Thank you Mr Segoje

\------------------------------------------------------------

<< Tefo Segoje responded>>

You welcome, sir.

\------------------------------------------------------------

THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

REPUBLIC OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

26 August 2009

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

Receipt of your letter of 23 April 2009, received on 18 August 2009, is hereby acknowledged.

The matter you have raised will be assessed to establish whether the law allows this office to investigate the complaint.

Kindly note that your complaint to the Public Protector does not interrupt the period of six months within which any civil claim instituted, against the government institution concerned has to be instituted, should you decide to do so. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact us for clarification.

One of our investigators will contact you in due course.

With kind regards

(signed)

DR M SCHUTTE

Executive Manager

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - September 2009

Via E-mail:

Subject: Come and talk to me

From: "Kader Asmal" <kasmal@uwc.ac.za>

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 12:07 pm

Priority: Normal

Dear Gabriel

You have been sending me, from time to time, copies of correspondence you have had with various people.

It is not clear to me what the reason of this correspondence has been with these people who do not appear to reply. When you initially wrote to me earlier, I replied that due to ill-health and great pressure on my time, I could no longer provide any advice.

I have now concluded that it is necessary that we should meet to discuss your state of affairs, so that some kind of resolution may or could be affected.

Could you contact Ms Salie at 021 959 3310 so that she could arrange for us to meet?

Yours sincerely

Professor Kader Asmal

Professor Extraordinary

Centre for Humanities: Faculty of Law

University of the Western Cape

Private Bag X17, Bellville, 7535

Tel: 021 959 3193 / 3310

Fax: 021 959 9287

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Gabriel Campher

To: Tefo Segoje (Office of Public Protector)

Date: 21 Sept 2009

Subject: Progress

Hi Mr Segoje

Any progress with regard to 'G Campher vs Parliament (RSA) & SAHRC'?

Thanks

G Campher

\------------------------------------------------------------

>>> Tefo Segoje>>> responds

Dear Mr Campher

I have a meeting with the SAHRC today.

\------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gabriel Campher

To: Tefo Segoje (Office of Public Protector)

Date: 22 Sept 2009

Subject: RE: Progress

Thanks and do not be shy to use the full authority of your office!

\------------------------------------------------------------

23 September 2009

Dr Allan Boesak, MPP*

Parliamentary Leader: Congress of the People (COPE)

Western Cape Provincial Parliament (WCPP)

PO Box 686

Cape Town

8000

Dear Dr Boesak

Following our discussion on Tuesday, 22 September 2009, I wish to raise three issues;

1. the unfair treatment by Parliament (RSA) of Ms Patisa Sipamla, a COPE candidate in the 2009 elections,

2. my own unconstitutional dismissal by Parliament (RSA) and

3. the illegally constituted SAHRC

Issue 1

Ms Sipamla stood as a COPE candidate in the 2009 general elections. She and four other colleagues were harassed by management to withdraw their candidacy, before the certificates were to be issued by the IEC. In terms of the workplace policy, they would have 'resigned' from Parliament (RSA) – see annexure for details. Parliament did not want to enforce the policy, because they knew that it was unconstitutional. Under pressure, three of the colleagues withdrew their candidacy, but Sipamla and Ms Peters (PAM) stood firm, when I briefed them on the unconstitutionality of the policy. A day before the IEC issued the certificates, Parliament suspended the policy.

Sipamla and Peters participated in the April 2009 elections, but were unsuccessful to win a seat. Since then Sipamla was victimised by Parliament in that no Committee chairperson wants to work with her. She goes to work late and leave early, because there is no work to do. This is undignified treatment by an employer, who is supposedly the epitome of democracy in a post-Apartheid South Africa. Peters is better off, because she does not work directly with the members.

I firmly believe that COPE should intervene and I would propose that the attached proposed motion should be tabled.

Issue 2

I believe that I was unfairly, illegally and unconstitutionally fired, when I stood as an independent Candidate in the 2006 local government elections. The matter was before the SAHRC, which indicated in April 2007 that there was prima facie case that my human rights were violated, but that further investigation was needed. The SAHRC however did not demonstrate the political will.

The matter is currently before the Public Protector, but I would urge COPE to put pressure on the powers that be, i.e. the ANC in Parliament, by tabling the attached proposed motion.

Issue 3

The current SAHRC, appointed by Pres Mbeki is illegally constituted and it seems that Pres Zuma will appointed illegal SAHRC. I believe that COPE should vote against the report of the PC on Justice and to call a press briefing on the matter. The SAHRC is too important to be emasculated and disempowered.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Yours sincerely

Gabriel Campher

* Dr Boesak did not respond. I was a Committee Coordinator at the WCPP at the time.

* MPP – Member of the Provincial Parliament

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - October 2009

Telephone Call

(Office of Public Protector to G Campher)

From: Tefo Segoje (Office of the Public Protector)

Date: 06 October 2009

Subject: Conversation with Mr Mokonyama (SAHRC)

Mr Segoje informed me telephonically that he spoke to Mr Mokonyama (SAHRC), who stated that the SAHRC received a letter, dated 6 March 2009 from Mr Dingani, Secretary to Parliament. The latter stated in the letter that Parliament's workplace policy had unintended unconstitutional implications and that Parliament was reviewing the policy.

The SAHRC then wrote back in July 2009 requesting the outcome of the review.

Mr Segoje was of the view that the SAHRC should issue a report, because they had all the information and include that Parliament was reviewing the policy. He was aware that the SAHRC was not fully constituted, which might hamper the issuing of the report, but he was still convinced that the CEO of the SAHRC should continue.

He added that the SAHRC's LCM (Legal Cases Management) should have met on 1 October 2009, but failed to do so. He concluded the conversation by promising to follow the matter up with his boss and push that the SAHRC should issue a report.

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via Facsimile:

To: Mr Eric Mokonyama (SAHRC – Head Office)

From: Gabriel Campher

Date: 09 October 2009

Subject: Letters

Dear Mr Mokonyama

Mr Segoje of the Public Protector's Office informs me that the SAHRC wrote to Parliament in July 2009. Is it possible to have a copy of this letter, as well as the 'signed and approved' policy that was applied to me in March 2006?

Thank you

Yours faithfully

(signed)

Gabriel Campher

Tel: 021 – 952 1235

Fax: 021 – 952 7890

Cel: 021 – 098 1235

Email: notreal@email

c.c. – Mr T Segoje (Office of the Public Protector)

\------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Cnr St Andrew and York Streets

Parktown

Johannesburg

2193

OUR REF: WC/26/459

YOUR REF:

ZA DINGANE

Secretary to Parliament

PO Box 15

CAPETOWN

8000

14 October 2009

By Fax: 021 403 2371

Dear Sir,

RE : COMPLAINT BY - GABRIEL CAMPHER

The above matter and your attached letter dated 06 March 09 refer.

Although the South African Human Rights Commission ("the Commission") appreciates the motivation for the policy in question, the commission is concerned that the motivation is obviously as unconstitutional as the policy itself and thus unjustifiable.

Considering the age, impact and the unintended constitutional consequences of the policy, kindly advise us urgently on:

1. Progress in terms of its review process you undertook to embark on earlier this year.

2. Any measures your Office will be putting in place to redress the unintended constitutional consequences of the said policy.

We will appreciate your written response here to by no later than close of business on the 16th October 09 and hope for you cooperation in resolving this matter.

Kindly acknowledge receipt, respond to our correspondences and do not hesitate to contact the writer, Mr. E. Mokonyama, on tel: 011- 484 8300 ext or email: EMokonyama@sahrc.org.za for any queries in this matter.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

Eric Mokonyama

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Know your rights, Accept your responsibility

\------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

www.parliament.gov.za

Tel: (021) 403 2240

20 October 2009

South African Human Rights Commission

Cnr St Andrews and York Streets

Parktown

Johannesburg

2193

Your Ref: WC/26/459

Attention: Mr E. Mokonyama

Per Telefax: (011) 484 1360

RE: COMPLAINT BY-GABRIEL CAMPHER

Your letter dated 14 October 2009 refers.

1. Following my letter to Mr McAuley on 06 March 2009, Parliament's Legal Services Office and its Policy Management Unit embarked on a process of reviewing the policy.

2. In an attempt to remedy the concerns about the old policy, a revised policy was concluded.

3. Enclosed please find the Reviewed Policy, on Code of Ethics and Conduct of Employees, as signed by the Presiding Officers.

Yours faithfully

(for the undersigned – M. Cloete)

ZA Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

ANNEXURE:

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

14 August 2009

REVIEWED POLICY ON CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES

APPROVED:

(signed)

MV SISULU, MP

Speaker: NA

Date: 21 August 2009

(signed)

MJ MAHLANGU, MP

Chairperson: NCoP

Date: 26 August 2009

Article 8.4 *

(a) An employee of Parliament:

(i) must not in his/her official capacity in any party-political process;

(ii) must not use pubic office or public resources for party-political activities;

(iii) similarly, he/she must not in his/her official capacity place his/her peers/subordinate in a position of conflict by inviting them to participate in party-political events in their official capacity.

(b) Subject to provision 8.4 (a) above, an employee may;

(i) be a member and serve on the management of a lawful political party;

(ii) attend a public political meeting, but may not preside or speak at such a meeting;

(iii) not draw up or publish any writing or deliver a public speech to promote or prejudice the interests of any political party;

(c) An employee may be a candidate for election as a member of the National Assembly, a provincial legislature or a Municipal Council or a delegate to the National Council of Provinces subject to the Code of Ethics and conduct for employees and any other prescribe limits and conditions;

(d) An employee must not later than the next working dat after he/she is issued with a certificate in terms of section 31(3) of the Electoral Act, 1998, inform his/her division/section/office or unit manager in writing that he/she is a candidate for election.

(e) The employee must furnish a copy of the certificate to the division/section/office or unit manager.

(f) The employee will be deemed to be on annual eave (and unpaid annual leave, if insufficient annual leave) from the date the certificate are issued until the election results are finalised.

(g) An employee elected as a member of the National Assembly or a provincial legislature or a full-time member of a Municipal Council or a delegate to the National Council of Provinces shall be deemed to have resigned from the Parliamentary Service with the effect from the date immediately before the date he or she assumes office as such member/delegate.

* Only this article is copied, because it deals specifically with the political activities of employees.

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - November 2009

Subject: Re: Confirmation of Appointment

From: "Rushni Salie"

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: November 20, 2009

Priority: Normal

Dear Gabriel

I refer to my earlier e-mail and wish to advise that the time and date has now changed. Prof Asmal will be at the university on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 and will be available to see you at 10h45.

Please confirm this is in order.

Regards

Rushni

Rushni Salie

Personal Assistant to Prof Kader Asmal

University of the Western Cape

Private Bag X17, Bellville, 7535

Tel: 021 959 3193 / 3310

Fax: 021 959 9287

*I met with Prof Asmal. He was concerned that I have been pursuing this matter for a long time, but in the process I was not getting younger and have responsibilities, like a family. In addition, I was sending copies of letters that I send to interested parties also to him. He felt that it did not serve any purpose. He wanted me to terminate my efforts of writing letters and concentrate on a new career and my family. He would assist me to get a job by being a referee on my curriculum vitae.

\------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 9

**Dismissal - January 2010**

'Be the change, you want in the world.'

\- Mahatma Gandhi

Via E-Mail

FROM: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

SENT: Wednesday, January 13, 2010

TO: Gabriel Campher

SUBJECT: YOUR COMPLAINT

Mr Campher

We approached the head of SAHRC Legal Services, Ms Danaline Franzman, concerning the delay to issue you with formal findings. She undertook to ensure that the draft report is finalized and submitted to Commissioners for comment and approval.

We will update you about developments.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

(Office of the Public Protector)

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal - March 2010

Via E-mail: To – Public Protector

Dear Mr Segoje

As an investigator at the Public Protector, I need the advice and protection of the Office of the Public Protector. As you know, I was fired in March 2006 [1] by Parliament (RSA), when I exercised my constitutionally guaranteed political rights. In April 2007 the SAHRC indicated that I have a prima facie case, but that it had to investigate. Nothing really happened afterwards and I approached your Cape Town office in April 2009. You received the file in August 2009 at the head office.

In Sept 2009, you met with the SAHRC investigator (Eric Mokonyama) and he indicated in Oct 2009 that Parliament acknowledged that the policy, used against me, was unconstitutional and they changed it. In Jan 2010 Ms Franzman, the Head of Legal Services (SAHRC) informed you that their report will be finalized and submitted to the Commissioners. On 08 Feb 2010 I spoke personally to Ms Franzman and she reassured me that the report was finalized and that she would submit it to the Chairperson of the SAHRC, before he attended the Opening of Parliament in Cape Town on 11Feb 2010.

I phoned Ms Franzman on 17 March 2010. She was 'unavailable' and her administrator referred me to Mr Mokonyama – back to square one!

I urgently need your intervention in this matter.

Thank you

Gabriel Campher

17 March 2010

NOTES:

1. It is more than four years ago.

\------------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

SENT: March 19, 2010, 12:16 PM

TO: Danaline Franzman

SUBJECT: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER – REF: WC/26/459-BS

Dear Ms Franzman

Your e-mail of 12 January 2010 refers.

Would you kindly update us about developments.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

(Office of the Public Protector)

\------------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

SENT: March 19, 2010, 02:22 PM

TO: Danaline Franzman

SUBJECT: RE: Complaint against Parliament: G Campher – Ref: WC/26/456-BS

Dear Madam

Would kindly indicate when will the matter be finalized as we need to give feedback to Mr Campher.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

(Office of the Public Protector)

\------------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Danaline Franzman [SAHRC]

SENT: Friday, March 19, 2010, 02:26 PM

TO: Tefo Segoje

CC: Kgomotso Motau

SUBJECT: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT:G CAMPHER–REF: WC/26/456-BS

Dear Sir

I have just earlier today requested the file handler, Mr Eric Mokonyama, to provide me with an update on the matter – he was out of office for a few days this week, and is currently seized with incorporating some amendments that I proposed into the draft finding that he had prepared, which once finalized will be submitted for consideration to our principals for approval.

Apologies for the delays, we will revert soonest and will definitely prioritize the matter from our side.

Regards

Danaline Franzman

Head of Programme: Legal Services

South African Human Rights Commission

Tel: +27 (0) 11 484 8300

Fax: +27 (0) 11 484 1360

\------------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Danaline Franzman [SAHRC]

SENT: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 08:57 AM

TO: Tefo Segoje

CC: Eric Mokonyama

SUBJECT: RE: Complaint against Parliament: G Campher – Ref: WC/26/459-BS

IMPORTANCE: High

Dear Mr Segoje

I have since our last communiqué, furnished the revised findings prepared by the Legal Department file handler, to our principals for their comments/approval as per internal procedure. In this regard, we intend to diarize the matter for a week until 29 March 2010 pending feedback awaited from relevant Commissioners.

I shall in any event request that Mr Mokonyama communicates with Mr Campher regarding progress, and will alert you as soon as there are further developments.

Trusting this is in order.

Regards

Danaline Franzman

\------------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

SENT: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 09:30 AM

TO: Gabriel Campher

SUBJECT: FW: Complaint against Parliament: G Campher – Ref: WC/26/459-BS

IMPORTANCE: High

Dear Mr Campher

Kindly take note of the below email from Ms Franzman.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

(Office of the Public Protector)

\------------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Gabriel Campher

SENT: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:09 AM

TO: Tefo Segoje

SUBJECT: RE: Complaint against Parliament: G Campher – Ref: WC/26/459-BS

Dear Mr Segoje

Thanks again for the follow-up and feedback. Things are getting desperate for me and my family and I would appreciate finality a.s.a.p.

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

\------------------------------------------------------------

VIA E-MAIL

FROM: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

SENT: Wednesday, March 24, 2010

TO: Gabriel Campher

SUBJECT: RE: Complaint against Parliament: G Campher – Ref: WC/26/459-BS

Will do so.

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal – April 2010

Via E-mail:

Subject: FW: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT : G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

"Eric Mokonyama" <SAHCR>

To: G Campher

Date: Tue, April 6, 2010 10:26 am

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Campher

This is just to confirm to you based on communications underneath that, despite the prolonged delays in this matter, it is being attended to and will hopefully be finalized soon.

Hope you exercise your remaining patience.

Eric Mokonyama

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Danaline Franzman

Sent: 30 March 2010 07:01 PM

To: Tefo Segoje

Cc: Eric Mokonyama; Kgomotso Motau

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT : G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Dear Mr Segoje

As promised and as an update, I am still awaiting feedback from the majority of our principals, having received only one response to date. I have just sent a further reminder for them to comment on the draft finding by 1 April, and trust that by early next week, we will be in a position to provide further feedback.

Regards

Danaline Franzman

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Danaline Franzman

Sent: 21 March 2010 09:00 AM

To: 'Tefo Segoje'

Cc: 'Eric Mokonyama'

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Importance: High

Dear Mr Segoje

I have since our last communiqué, furnished the revised finding prepared by the Legal Department file handler, to our principals for their comment/approval as per internal procedure. In this regard, we intend to diarize the matter for a week until 29/3/10 pending feedback awaited from relevant Commissioners.

I shall in any event request that Mr Mokonyama communicates with Mr Campher regarding progress, and will alert you as soon as there are further developments.

Trusting this is in order.

Regards

Danaline Franzman

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

Sent: 19 March 2010 02:22 PM

To: Danaline Franzman

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT : G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Dear Madam

Would you kindly indicate when will the matter be finalized as we need to give feedback to Mr. Campher.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Danaline Franzman [SAHCR]

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:26 PM

To: Tefo Segoje

Cc: Kgomotso Motau

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT : G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Dear Sir

I have just earlier today requested the file handler, Mr Eric Mokonyama, to provide me with an update on the matter - he was out of office for a few days this week, and is currently seized with incorporating some amendments that I proposed into the draft finding that he had prepared, which finding once finalized will be submitted for consideration to our principals for approval.

Apologies for the delays, we will revert soonest and will definitely prioritize the matter from our side.

Regards,

Danaline Franzman

Head of Programme: Legal Services

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:51 AM

To: Gabriel Campher

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Will do so.

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:09 AM

To: Tefo Segoje

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Dear Mr Segoje

Thanks again for the follow-up and feedback. Things are getting desperate for me and my family and I would appreciate finality a.s.a.p.

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:30 AM

To: Gabriel Campher

Subject: FW: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Importance: High

Dear Mr. Campher

Kindly take note of the below email from Ms Franzman.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Danaline Franzman [SAHCR]

Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:57 AM

To: Tefo Segoje

Cc: Eric Mokonyama

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Importance: High

Dear Mr Segoje

I have since our last communiqué, furnished the revised finding prepared by the Legal Department file handler, to our principals for their comment/approval as per internal procedure. In this regard, we intend to diarize the matter for a week until 29/3/10 pending feedback awaited from relevant Commissioners.

I shall in any event request that Mr Mokonyama communicates with Mr Campher regarding progress, and will alert you as soon as there are further developments.

Trusting this is in order.

Regards

Danaline Franzman

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Tefo Segoje [Office of the Public Protector]

Sent: 19 March 2010 02:22 PM

To: Danaline Franzman

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Dear Madam

Would you kindly indicate when will the matter be finalized as we need to give feedback to Mr. Campher.

Regards

Tefo Segoje

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Danaline Franzman [SAHCR]

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:26 PM

To: Tefo Segoje

Cc: Kgomotso Motau

Subject: RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Dear Sir

I have just earlier today requested the file handler, Mr Eric Mokonyama, to provide me with an update on the matter - he was out of office for a few days this week, and is currently seized with incorporating some amendments that I proposed into the draft finding that he had prepared, which finding once finalized will be submitted for consideration to our principals for approval.

Apologies for the delays, we will revert soonest and will definitely prioritize the matter from our side.

Regards,

Danaline Franzman

Head of Programme: Legal Services

South African Human Rights Commission

Tel : +27 (0) 11 484 8300 Ext 2007/8

Fax : +27 (0) 11 484 1360

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Tefo Segoje

Sent: 19 March 2010 12:16 PM

To: Danaline Franzman

Subject: COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT: G CAMPHER - REF WC/26/459-BS

Dear Ms. Franzman

Your email of 12 January 2010 refers.

Would you kindly update us about developments?

Regards

Tefo Segoje

Office of Public Protector

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal – June 2010

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Our Ref: WC/26/459-BS

Date: 02 June 2010

Dear Mr Campher

RE: YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST PARLIAMENT'S "POLICY ON EMPLOYEE CONDUCT"

The abovementioned matter refers,

The South African Human Rights Commission (hereafter the 'Commission') was set up to investigate prima facie violations of human rights as contained in chapter two of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, the Bill of Rights.

The Legal Services Programme of the Commission has finally, upon an intense research and robust internal debate, made a self-explanatory finding herein which is attached hereto for your information, attention and record.

Should you not be satisfied with this decision, you may appeal in writing to the Chairperson, Advocate L Mushwana, stating grounds of your Appeal, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this finding.

Regards

(signed)

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Know you rights; Accept your responsibilities.

Chairperson: L Mushwana; Deputy Chairperson: P Govender; Commissioners: L Mokate, B Malatji, L Love, B Titus, Acting Chief Executive Officer: N Mukwevho

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: FW: G CAMPHER v SA PARLIAMENT - Policy on Employee Conduct

From: "Eric Mokonyama" <emokonyama@sahrc.org.za>

To: G Campher

Date: Fri, June 4, 2010 1:45 pm

Priority: Normal

Attachment: SAHRC REPORT - G CAMPHER v SA PARLIAMENT

Dear Mr Campher

Attached, please the finalised report on your complaint.

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: "Eric Mokonyama" <emokonyama@sahrc.org.za>

To: G Campher

Date: Mon, June 14, 2010 9:47 am

Priority: Normal

Attachment: SAHRC REPORT - G CAMPHER v SA PARLIAMENT

Dear Mr Campher

I have just returned from leave and will be attending to this matter soon.

E Mokonyama

\------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: 09 June 2010 06:16 PM

To: Eric Mokonyama

Subject: Re: FW: G CAMPHER v SA PARLIAMENT - POLICY ON EMPLOYEE CONDUCT

Dear Mr Mokonyama

Thank you for the report.

I am however unable to open the attachment. Please use another programme, e.g. Adobe or Word.

Thank you

G Campher

* Below is the SAHRC Report

Reference: WC/26/459

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Campher, Gabriel (Complainant) and National Parliament, SA (Respondent)

FINDING

1. BACKGROUND

The complainant was employed by the National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa as a committee secretary as of 01 July 1996. On the 1st of March 2006, the Complainant stood for the local government elections as an independent candidate for the position of ward counsellor after his nomination in January 2006. Before he stood for elections, the Complainant claims to have gone through the relevant documentation, that is, the Constitution, the Electoral Act and the internal policies to ensure that it was permissible for him to do so.

According to the Complainant, despite all efforts in ensuring that he did not violate any law or policy by standing for elections, he was called into the manager's office on the 6th of March 2006, where in the presence of his supervisor, was asked to confirm whether or not he was in fact standing for elections. Upon confirming that fact, he was told by the manager that due to the fact that by his own admission, he had accepted a nomination and was running for elections, he is automatically no longer an employee of Parliament as he is regarded as having voluntarily resigned from his post as committee secretary. The manager reportedly explained that this was based on Chapter 8, Part 1, 4(1) on the Policy on Termination of Service (see annexure 'A;) which states that:

'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he /she accepts such nomination or appointment.'

Consequent to the said dismissal, the Complainant, through NEHAWU, sued Parliament for unfair dismissal rightly in the CCMA, Cape Town, on the 28th of August 2006 for violating his constitutional right to fair labour practice to hold public office.

The CCMA found that the Complainant:

(a) ought to have been reasonably aware of the provisions of the applicable policy (annexure 'A'), was guilty of the offence of conflict of interest as he reasonably ought to have known the said provisions, and that, given his position at work, he could not be partisan.

(b) he did not resign voluntarily as he has not submitted his resignation in writing as required by Parliament's policy and section 37(4)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Act 75 of 1997. Further that he cannot be deemed to have resigned as a result of having breached the said policy.

(c) he was thus found to have been dismissed and the dismissal was found to have been substantively fair, but procedurally unfair and awarded R19 666,00 in compensation.

It was after the said CCMA findings that the Complainant approached the South African Human Rights Commission (the Commission) on the 18th September 2006 to engage Parliament and, if need be to approach the courts, on the basis of the alleged unconstitutionality and invalidity of the said policy.

1. THE COMPLAINT

His complaint is against his dismissal by Parliament on the basis of a policy which he alleges;

(a) he was unaware of,

(b) is unconstitutional and invalid as it limits his rights in terms of section 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.

(c) of did not exist as it was still in its draft stage.

The Commission received a record of the CCMA proceedings (see annexure 'B') and a copy of the Policy (annexure 'A') from the Complainant, the latter with no name/title/date. Numerous attempts to establish the name/title/date of Annexure 'A' has been in vain. From the records of the CCMA proceedings and correspondence the Commission received from Parliament, it appears that a policy (annexure 'A') on the basis of which the dismissal was executed was in existence at the time of the dismissal of the Complainant.

The Commission engaged Parliament mostly telephonically and in writing (see annexure 'C') on the constitutionality/validity of the said policy, which was being redrafted at the time of the Complainant's dismissal and subsequently approved in June 2006 (see annexure 'D').

As a result of the said engagements by the Commission, Parliament confirmed that the said policy approved in June 2006 is not based on any national legislation, conceded to have been advised about the unintended unconstitutional consequences brought by the policy and undertook to have it reviewed (see annexure 'E').

Finally, on the 22nd October 2009, the Commission received an approved re-reviewed policy on Code of Ethics and Conduct of Employees (annexure 'F').

2. ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY

Firstly, the Commission is, on the strength of the CCMA record, of the view that there was a policy in place. It is still debatable whether the Complainant was aware/unaware or should have been aware of the policy at the time of acceptance of his nomination as an independent candidate.

Of concern is the clause in the policy which provides that 'If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/she is regarded as having resigned...' This provision is extremely broad and precluded employees of Parliament from being 'nominated or appointed as members of any statutory body and essentially meant that employees could not become a member of a statutory body which has nothing to do with political partisanship, e.g. a school governing body, a community police forum or even a Political Party, etc.

It is unclear how it could be claimed that the overall objective of the policy was to ensure that staff at Parliament remains non-partisan in the performance of their duties and to proscribe conflict of interest in the employment relationship as it simply excluded members from being party to statutory bodies as opposed to political parties, especially that the exclusion was automatic.

In any event, it would still be unconstitutional to preclude employee citizens from being members of Political Parties. It thus remains questionable whether its content and reasonable interpretation is in line with the provisions of sections 19(3)(b) and 23(1), read with section 36(1) in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 (the Constitution).

3. THE APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS

Section 19(3)(b) provides that "every citizen has the right to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office".

Section 23(1) provides that "everyone has the right to fair labour practices".

Section 36(1) provides that "the rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including;

(a) The nature of the right;

(b) The importance of the purpose of the limitation;

(c) The extent and nature of the limitation;

(d) The relationship between the limitation and its purpose; and

(e) Less restrictive means to achieve the purpose".

The Complainant has the rights to stand for public office and to fair labour practice, and of course, with limitations.

The Complainant has been requested by the Complainant to pronounce on whether the limitation by Parliament, of his constitutional rights to fair labour practice and to stand for public office is in accordance with section 36(1).

It must be noted that the CCMA has already pronounce that, except that the Complainant's right to fair labour practice has been infringed through being dismissed procedurally unfairly (and subsequently compensated), his dismissal was substantively fair and his right to stand for public office justifiably limited. According to the CCMA, the policy is not unconstitutional in that the limitation contained therein is in accordance with section 36(1).

It also must be placed on record that although the Commission has the mandate to deal with labour right matters, it is by no means a substitution of the CCMA and also has no review/appeal powers against the decisions of the latter. The Complainant approached the CCMA to pronounce on the legality or otherwise of Parliament's conduct based on the said policy and should have referred this matter to the Labour Court for review upon being dissatisfied with the CCMA findings.

It is more so that even if the Commission were to now find Parliament's dismissal of the Complainant to have been unfair and thus in violation of the Complainant's right to fair labour practice, the dismissal would still have to be referred to the CCMA which has been established to deal with employer/employee labour disputes and whose decision can only be reviewed by the Labour Court.

Regarding the constitutionality of the policy and the Complainant's right to hold public office, the Commission intervened and exerted pressure on Parliament to amend its reviewed policy, as requested by the Complainant. As a result, employees of Parliament can now hold public offices (with authorization of the Secretary) without being deemed to have resigned. In terms of the re-revised Policy, it is only employees who take positions as Members of the National Assembly or a Provincial Legislature of full-time member of Municipal Councils or delegates to the National Council of Provinces, who shall be deemed to have resigned form Parliament.

The Commission has however highlighted possible challenges Parliament may encounter in future with provisions that employees "shall be deemed to have resigned" and "may attend public political meetings but may not speak at such meetings" considering the section 37(4)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, which states that notice of termination of a contract of employment must be given in writing; and section 16 of the Constitution which deals with freedom of expression, respectively.

4. CONCLUSION

The policy on the basis of which Parliament dismissed the Complainant in March 2006 was unconstitutional in so far as it deemed employees who accepted nominations for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body occupied public offices to have automatically resigned from Parliament. It thus unreasonably and unjustifiably limited the Complainant's right to hold public office as enshrined under section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution. The policy has since been revised in this regard.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission therefore recommends that:

(a) Parliament consider offering the Complainant, within one (1) month of receipt of this finding, an apology for having dismissed him from his job as a result of application of the policy (annexure 'A'), which the Commission finds to have been unconstitutional'

(b) in view of the provisions of section 37(4)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and section 16 of the Constitution, Parliament must delete, within three (3) months of receipt of this finding, provisions under clauses 8.4 (b)(ii) and (g) of the revised policy that employees 'shall be deemed to have resigned', but 'may attend public political meetings but may not speak at such meetings'.

(c) Parliament formally notifies its employees about the revised policy and its provisions.

Should you not be satisfied with this decision, you may appeal it in writing to the Chairperson of the Commission, Advocate ML Mushwana, stating the grounds of your Appeal, within 45 days from the date of receiving this finding.

Prepared by: Eric Mokonyama – Legal Services

Approved: (signed)

Per: Commissioner B Malatji

Date: 21 May 2010

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal – July 2010

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Our Ref: A7/07/2010

Provincial Ref: WC/26/459-BS

Date: 22 July 2010

Dear Mr Campher

RE: APPEAL TO THE CHAIRPERSON

The above matter and your letter of appeal, dated the 6th of July, but only received by our offices on the 8th of July 2010 refers.

I can kindly confirm that the Office of the Chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission (Commission) has received a copy of the above-mentioned letter of appeal.

The Chairperson's Office shall now proceed to request a copy of your complaint file from the Provincial Office from which your complaint originates.

Kindly be advised that after receiving a copy of your file from the said Provincial Office, your matter shall be placed in the bundle of matters on appeal that the chairperson has to adjudicate on. There are numerous matters before the Chairperson on appeal from almost all the nine provinces throughout our country, all of which have to be dealt with on a 'first come, first serve' basis.

When the Chairperson has had an opportunity to properly deal with all the other matters on appeal currently before him, his Office shall then proceed to consider the issues you have raised on appeal and peruse your particular complaint file from the Provincial Office concerned. Thereafter his Office shall conduct research on the issues you have specifically raised and prepare draft findings for his consideration. Once this has all been done the Chairperson shall duly apply his mind to your matter on appeal and adjudicate on it accordingly.

The matters before the Chairperson on appeal currently are plenty in number and a diligent attempt shall be made to expedite these matters in his Office.

Yours faithfully,

(signed)

THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Per: Mr P Gregoriou

(Legal Officer: Commissioners)

\------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal – August 2010

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

17 August 2010

Draft Resolution (Mr DV Bloem, MP)

That the Council-

1. notes that two former employees of Parliament, Messrs Abbass (Shamiel) and Campher (Gabriel), were dismissed when they stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government elections;

2. further notes that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) reported on 21 May 2010 that the dismissals were unconstitutional;

3. recognizes that our political freedom was achieved at a high cost through the contributions of Madiba (Nelson Mandela) and many other freedom fighters and as we celebrate this legacy of our father Madiba, let us make everyday a memorable one;

4. therefore moves that Parliament should –

(a) reinstate and reimburse them for loss of income;

(b) address the opportunity and professional development suffered by them;

(c) provide redress for the violation of their human rights and the losses suffered; and

(d)apologise to these two patriotic South Africans for violating their human rights.

* I asked Mr Bloem, MP to table this 'motion without notice' in Parliament, which he did. The idea was that it would become a resolution of the House that must be executed by the Secretary to Parliament. However, if a 'motion without notice' was rejected, even if only one member, then it would have to tabled again as a 'motion with notice'. Unfortunately, it was rejected by a Member, but Mr Bloem never tabled it again, despite my numerous phone calls to his office.

* Go to You Tube (www.youtube.com) search under 'parliament SA by gcampher'.

\------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Our Ref: A7/07/2010

Provincial Ref: WC/26/459-BS

Date: 30th August 2010

Dear Mr Campher

RE: APPEAL TO THE CHAIRPERSON

The above matter and your letter of appeal received by our offices on or about the 8th day of July 2010 refers.

I kindly confirm receipt of the aforesaid letter and the contents thereof has been noted.

The South African Human Rights Commission (hereafter the 'Commission') was established to investigate prima facie violations of human rights as contained within the Bill of Rights, which is Chapter Two of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 (hereafter referred to as the 'Constitution').

In terms of Article 4.1 of the Commission's Complaints Handling Procedures:

"4.1 The Commission may reject any complaint, which is –

4.1.3 the subject of a dispute before a court of law, tribunal, any statutory body, ay body with internal dispute resolution mechanisms or settled between the parties, or in which there is a judgement on the issues in the complaint or finding of such court of law, tribunal or statutory body..."

Moreover in terms of Article 4.2 of the Commission's Complaints Handling Procedures:

"4.2 If in the opinion of the Head of the Legal Services Programme...the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission, or could be dealt with more effectively or expeditiously by another organisation, statutory body or institution created by the Constitution or any piece of legislation it shall...refer the complainant to such an appropriate body..."

On perusing your file I note that your initial complaint related in essence to the manner in which you were dismissed by your erstwhile employer, namely, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (hereafter referred to as the 'Parliament').

The basis for your dismissal was due to the fact that you stood for local government elections on or about 6 March 2006 as an independent candidate for the position of ward councillor, you would be considered as having resigned from the service voluntarily in line with the Policy on termination of Service of Parliament (hereafter referred to as the 'Policy').

You proceeded to successfully challenge the procedural unfairness of the dismissal before Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (hereafter referred to as the 'CCMA') however same indeed found that the dismissal was substantively fair.

You approach the Commission with a view to it assisting you to engage with Parliament, and if need be, approach the courts, on the basis of the alleged unconstitutionality and invalidity of the Policy that Parliament relied upon to dismiss you.

On or about the 21st day of May 2010 the Head Office of the Commission confirmed inter alia in its finding that notwithstanding the CCMA pronouncing on the substance fairness of your dismissal the Commission is not in a position to act as an appeal or review body over decisions of another statutory body such as the CCMA.

Should you have wished to dispute the pronouncement by the CCMA regarding the issue of the legitimacy of the Policy, the Head Office confirmed that the appropriate forum to do so would have been the Labour Court where you would have had taken the matter on review or appeal.

The Head Office confirmed further in its finding that with regards to the constitutionality of the Policy in question, the Commission approached and exerted pressure on Parliament with a view to it reviewing same which has indeed now occurred.

After having recommended that Parliament inter alia consider offering you an apology for having dismissed you from your job as a result of the application of the Policy in question, the Head Office was of the view that there was nothing further it could do in this matter and proceeded to close your file.

With regards to the provisions of both the Constitution and the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994 (hereafter referred to as the 'HRCA'), the Commission's Legal Services Programme is charged with the duty to investigate complaints of human rights violations and the manner within which this is dealt with is determined in its Complaints Handling Procedures.

After a thorough analysis and due consideration of your complaint I confirm that the decisions of the Head Office, to confirm the above, was in compliance of the Commission's Complaints Handling Procedures in that the Commission would not have been in a position to deal with your complaint as it does not have the mandate to deal with labour disputes generally, notwithstanding provision being made in the Bill of Rights with regards to labour relations.

The basis for this is that the Commission may reject a complaint which is the subject of a dispute before a court of law or statutory body or in which there is a judgement on the issues in the complaint or finding of such a court of law or statutory body. In your complaint such a statutory body was that of the CCMA and should you wish to challenge its pronouncement then you would have to proceed to review or appeal same at the appropriate labour court.

On this basis I strongly recommend that you consult with your attorneys to discuss the merits of instituting the necessary action you desire, particularly relating to the length of time it has taken for this matter to be placed before the relevant legal forum and how successful any condonation application, which in the circumstance would have to be lodged, may be. You would have to ensure that you have furnished same with copies of all the documents you have relating to this matter and in particular any proof you may have regarding the alleged procedural unfairness of your resignation.

If you cannot afford the services of a private attorney you may approach your nearest office of Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) for assistance.

The LASA Justice Centre nearest to you is the one situated at 5th and 6th Floor, Nedbank Building, 85 St. George's Mall, Cape Town, 8001. They may be contacted at the following postal address; P.O. Box 516, Cape Town, 8000.

Should you wish to telephonically contact them, then their telephone number is 021-426 4126or should you wish to transmit a fax, then their number is 021-426 5766.

Accordingly, your appeal is dismissed and this decision is final.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Per: ML Mushwana

CHAIRPERSON

Cc: Head Of Programme: Legal Services (SAHRC)

Cc: Provincial Manger: Gauteng Province (South African Human Rights Commission

Know you rights; Accept your responsibilities.

Chairperson: ML Mushwana; Deputy Chairperson: P Govender; Commissioners (Full-Time): L Mokate, J Malatji; Commissioners (Part-Time) L Love, D Titus, Chief Executive Officer: AK Ahmed

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal – October 2010

Via E-mail:

From: Gabriel Campher

To: Aziz Hartley *

Sent: 1 October 2009

Subject: SAHRC story

Dear Aziz

On Wed, 23 Sept 2009, I gave documentation on the 'illegally constituted SAHRC' to you. Parliament recommended to the President that six, instead of ten Commissioners be appointed. You indicated that you had to consult with your editor and that the Cape Times had to do research on the matter. I also SMSed you on Mon, 28 Sept 2009 about progress, but no response. I therefore deduce that the story was not considered 'newsworthy' and that I (if I truly believe I its newsworthiness) should explore other means to bring it to the attention of the South African public.

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

* Aziz Hartley was a journalist at the Cape Times, one of Cape Town's daily newspapers.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>Aziz Hartley >>> responded

Hello Gabriel

Thanks for the email. Apologies for not replying to your SMS – I got my new simcard now after the old one messed up. Yes – it has not yet been decided on whether to use the information. Having said that, it may be worth noting that as recent as this week, our political bureau correspondent, Christelle Terreblanche* has reported on the SAHRC matter.

Regards

Aziz

* She wrote a good article, but also missed the linked between the Human Rights Act and the Interim Constitution, i.e. the requirement of 11 commissioners.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> Gabriel Campher>>> responded

Hi Aziz

I checked out Terreblanche's story, but it does not deal with my concern. However, it does illustrate the power of the media - as a conscience of society and an ethical player that protects the citizenry and the institutions of democracy.

Please discuss my material with your editor.

Thanks

Gabriel

* Aziz did not respond.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 10

Dismissal – March 2011

'To err is human.'

Shona proverb

E-Mail:

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: 25 March 2011 02:24 PM

To: Alta van Wyk

Subject: Motion

(* Van Wyk is a Member of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament for COPE)

Hi Mrs Van Wyk

On 6 March 2006 National Parliament dismissed me, because I exercised my political rights as stipulated in section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution. I took the matter to the CCMA and later to the SAHRC that eventually found in 2010 that Parliament's workplace policy was unconstitutional. The SAHRC did not suggest 'appropriate redress' as per section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution, but stated that Parliament 'may apologise'!

I then asked Mr Dennis Bloem, your fellow political party member, who is at National Parliament to table a 'motion without notice' in the National Council of Provinces (NCoP). This was done on 17 August 2010, but a MP objected, which meant that the motion must be tabled 'with notice'. Mr Bloem however did not table it again. I did not follow the matter up, because of union challenges that I faced as shop steward in the WCPP workplace. I made contact during the last months in 2011 with the personal assistant of Mr Bloem, as well as the office manager of the chief whip of the NCoP, but no progress.

I would appreciate it if you could make contact with Mr Bloem so as to bring this matter to conclusion. The ANC would obviously defeat the motion, but it will show supporters of the constitution that we are at the cliff. While this matter is played out in the NCoP, the fight should continue on other fronts, that is the media and in the National Assembly.

I wish to add that Parliament wanted to fire five employees that wanted to stand as candidates in the 2009 general elections – one of whom stood for COPE. This employee (Patisa Sipamla) approached me. I wrote to the acting Secretary to Parliament (that is Michael Coetzee, because Dingani was suspended) and pointed out that the workplace policy was unconstitutional and that the matter was referred to the SAHRC. He then suspended the policy temporarily and the employees could participate in the 2009 elections.

I led a march to Parliament on 6 March 2009 (three years after my dismissal) and handed a memorandum to the Secretary to Parliament's representative. The acting secretary, Mr Coetzee responded to the memorandum on 17 March 2009.

None of the employees' political parties defended them! Patisa was unsuccessful in the elections and returned to work as a secretary to the committee chairperson. However, none of the ANC committee chairpersons wanted to work with her and she could not be allocated from the pool to a chairperson. The result was that she had no work for months and merely spend her time in the pool in committee section. They wanted to frustrate her so she should resign, but she did not throw in the towel.

Attached, please find the following;

(a) NCoP Order Paper (that is the motion)

(b) SAHRC report

(c) Memorandum (6 March 2009)

(d) Response to the memorandum

(e) Temporarily suspension of the unconstitutional policy

(f) Response of Dingani to SAHRC (6 March 2009)

The above is but a few of the many letters, e-mails, etc. that I send and received the last five years.

Thank you in anticipation.

Warm regards

Gabriel

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: FW: Motion

From: "Alta van Zyl"

To: "'Deidre Carter'" [COPE: Parliamentary Office]

Date: Sat, March 26, 2011 8:22 pm

Priority: Normal

[* This e-mail was originally in Afrikaans]

My fellow Copers of Cape Town!!!!!!

The e-mail below refers. I know Gabriel Campher since the 90's, whilst he was working at National Parliament in the committee section.

He has an extremely sound knowledge of the working issues of the committees, in Parliament and the Western Cape Provincial legislature. Dennis, can you follow up again, please. Julie is it possible to have it also as a motion or statement???? in the National Assembly??? Anything, as long it has carries the most weight. Nick and Luzelle do you have any advice on other routes that may be followed? Philip, can we blow it up in the media!!!! Of course with Gabriel's permission.

Greetings and thank you.

Alta van Zyl

[* There was no feedback after this.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal – September 2011

E-Mail

23 September 2011

Hi Mr Groenewald

Thank you for the quick and sympathetic reaction to my cry for help.

I hear what you say and understand your realist position. In your opinion, I must accept the outcome of this matter, because a motion tabled in Parliament will not have any legal force and that politics is not a fair game. I learnt, of course, a lot the past six years about politics, loyalty, and integrity, but most important of all, I grew spiritually, especially in the last two years.

I cannot however believe that my family and I are still going through this tribulation and that it will end like this. Shamiel Abbas of the Independent Democrats (ID) was dismissed with me. He lost everything – house, car and a 20 year career in the public service. In addition to that; his wife was pregnant at the time. If this matter is buried here, then it will give the unethical people in high positions at Parliament more impetus to do more acts of injustice to other employees and to the South African taxpayers. They must be exposed. Even Prof Kader Asmal wrote to them about the validity of the workplace policy, but they gave him no response.

CCMA

I took the labour case against Parliament to the CCMA. This case was littered with concessions on my part, because I thought that the matter was a mistake and that they would not just kick an employee of almost ten onto the street. My position and stance was however exploited by unscrupulous Parliamentary officials.

I believe, with hindsight that I should have won the case, easily, despite the fact that I was naïve and had an inexperienced and reactive representative, a fellow colleague. The followings things should not have happened;

1. My representative did not have a game plan,

2. I had to secure all the witnesses, that I thought would be useful,

3. I conceded to Parliament and took Mr Dingani (Secretary to Parliament), Ms Mene (committee section manager) and Mr Phaweni (policy unit manager) off my witness list.

4. I believed Sean September (labour relations manager), when he said that the CCMA was not as formal and technical as a court of law and that many things were common knowledge and did not require witnesses.

5. Parliament used an experienced and professional legal representative, that was on its payroll for many years.

6. My supervisor (Ben Kali) testified that he was unaware of the workplace policy that was applied against me, but the CCMA commissioner and Parliament's legal representative were adamant that I should have been aware of the said policy!

7. Parliament did not present an approved and signed copy of the said policy, but the word of Parliament's only witness (Sean September) was accepted, but matters that we introduced was labeled as 'hearsay'.

8. Our argument that the policy was unconstitutional was unceremoniously not entertained by the commissioner.

9. Our evidence that other Parliamentary officials participated in previous elections were treated as 'hearsay', because they were not called as witnesses. We stated that a female official stood as a party candidate in the 2004 general elections. Her manager (Mr Robbie Karreman) even approved vacation leave to allow her to campaign in the elections. Another official was a councillor in the Cape Town municipal council since 2001 and was also the mayor of Kuils River (a suburb of Cape Town). This official was the manager of the finance section and took early retirement in 2008 to make place for a black manager, as part of Parliament's transformation strategy.

South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)

I took this case to the SAHRC in September 2006 to investigate the constitutionality of the policy and the violation of my political human rights. The SAHRC only finalised its report in May 2010. During the intervening almost four years, I wrote many letters requesting progress reports, even to request reopening of the case after the SAHRC closed it unilaterally when Parliament stated that the case was sub judice.

I also had to approach the Public Protector to pressurise the SAHRC to finalise its investigation. It was clear that the SAHRC, which was nominated by Parliament and appointed by the President did not want to completes its investigation into Parliament, 'without fear, favour or prejudice', as was require by the Constitution.

I understand that the motion will not have legal force, but if it is accepted as a resolution in the National Assembly, it will have legal force. Most of the MPs do not know me, but we must focus on the principle – the constitution was raped, officials misuse their positions and Parliamentary resources and procedures to play political games.

I understand that a motion must be politically acceptable to the party whips, especially the majority party, before it can be tabled in the House. Parliament is a political institution that is governed by politics and not emotion, ethics or rationalism. There are of course motions that go beyond party politics into the epistemological and existential spheres. There are things that are more permanent and timeless and not brief like political games. These things are the values that are entrenched in the Constitution and the Bible.

The legal system has time periods in which to bring matters to legal forums. I could not take my case to the Labour Court after the unfair CCMA outcome, due to a lack of money. The constitutional aspect of my case had to be argued in the High Court and the Constitutional Court, but that would cost millions of rand. The SAHRC that had to represent the marginalised did not assist to rectify the injustice that was done to me ad my family. When these timeframes are missed, then it does not mean that the truth and justice are swept under the carpet, because truth and justice are timeless. Abbas gave up and accepted that darkness will engulf one candle. Other people emigrated, but others, like Terry Crawford-Browne did not, but took the government on over the corruption in the arms deal. We need to stand up, because how are we to drive the darkness away, if we do not shine our lights?

Secretary Dingani

He eventually responded to many requests from the SAHC for information and stated that 'there were unintended constitutional consequences' of the said workplace policy. He did however not acknowledge the intended financial and emotional negative consequences that my family had to endure. Prof Kader Asmal wrote to him about the constitutionality of the said policy, but he did not respond to Prof Asmal, who was at that time an MP and the chairperson of a Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Defence.

Way forward

1. It will be difficult to persuade the majority party (ANC) that justice should be served, because of the negative political consequences. It is not even necessary that the motion should be tabled in the House, because the whippery and the Presiding Officers can deal with the matter behind the scenes. I have shown with the SAHRC outcome that the policy was unconstitutional, but it must not be 'useless information'. It should be the basis of illuminating change, so that we can drive the darkness away.

2. There are various options to deal with the motion;

(a) The motion can b tabled 'without notice' and if there are objections, it can be discussed at the whippery.

Five employees of Parliament stood as candidates for their political parties in the 2009 general elections. Parliament however put pressure on them to withdraw their candidature, because of its revised policy on the political activities of employees.

The old policy read:

Article 8.4 (i) – 'Should an employee be elected to a position as a full-time councilor, she/he will have to resign from Parliament. As regards those who wish to take up part-time positions, they must ensure that they undertake their duties as a councillor, as far as possible outside official hours of work. Specific approval has to be granted that the employee can retain her/his remuneration, as required.'

The revised policy read:

Article 8.4 (b) – 'An employee who stands for election to be a member of the Assembly or a delegate of the NCoP or a municipal council or Provincial legislature will be deemed to have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which he/her candidacy certificate is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.'

One of the five affected employees approached me and I informed her that the revised policy, like the old policy was not in line with section 19(3)(b) the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which allowed candidature.

The section read as follows;

'Every South African citizen has the right to stand for public office, and if elected, to hold office.'

I wrote to the Acting Secretary to Parliament (Mr M Coetzee), because the Secretary was suspended on fraud charges. Mr Coetzee later temporarily suspended the policy, which allowed them to participate in the elections. They were unsuccessful, but returned to their workstations. My friend, who stood for COPE, a rival of the ANC (majority party in Parliament) was however treated like the plague by her ANC committee chairperson with whom she worked. She was moved from that chairperson, but no other chairperson wanted to work with her. The result was that she did nothing at work for the last few months.

If the motion is tabled in the House, focus will be put on the unfair treatment of employees by Parliament's management.

I hope to hear from you.

Best regards

Gabriel Campher

[* This correspondence with Pieter Groenewald was originally in Afrikaans. I came a long way with Pieter Groenewald. I worked with him as a committee secretary (1996-1999), when he was the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence. The chairpersonship was normally acquired by a member of the majority party, but the chairpersonship of this committee was literally given to Groenewald's party, the Freedom Front, even though they only had five seats in a 400 seat National Assembly. The Freedom Front consisted of Afrikaners, whose aim was to obtain an independent state for White people. This Afrikaner party got the committee chairpersonship as part of the inclusion and reconciliation strategy of the majority party; the ANC. 'Reconciliation' between Whites and Blacks was the buzz word after the demise of Apartheid and the historic 1994 elections.

This e-mail was in response to Groenewald's negative response to my initial letter in which I asked that he table a motion in the National Assembly. The motion stated that I was unfairly and unconstitutional dismissed by Parliament, citing the finding of the SAHRC and that I (and Shamiel Abbas) should be re-employed or compensated for lost earnings. He was however of the view that the motion would not have legal force and that I should accept the situation – at least I got a two months' salary award by the CCMA. I was however not convinced by his response. He was however pragmatic, because his party, the Freedom Front did not have the numbers in the House to pass the motion – the ANC had more than 260 seats.

I did not hear from him again...

P.S. - I would also approach Adv Hendrik Schmidt of the Democratic Alliance in 2012. He, however did not respond to the documents that I dropped off at his office. Schmidt was a member of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, which I serviced, from July 1996 to March 2006, as a committee secretary.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 11

**Dismissal – March 2012**

'Where there is a herd without a bull, a castrated ox will rule'

Boran proverb (Kenya)

27 March 2012

Mr Tau, MP

Chairperson of Committees

National Council of Provinces

Parliament (RSA)

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Tau

PEOPLE'S PARLIAMENT

I attended the memorial service on 19 January 2012 for the late Albert Mamabolo*. As speaker after speaker came to the podium, I looked around the (historic) room at my former colleagues and it reminded me that we are all human –we are fallible and mortal. What are they going to say about me?

I agree with your sentiments about Albert and Parliament. Yes, the only way to bring about positive change is to promote activism and cadreship. Parliament is not the buildings and equipment, but the people that passionately go the extra mile on a daily basis to ensure that the mandate of the institution is executed. Parliament must really become people-centred.

My former colleagues and Members will attest to the fact that I went the extra mile and served clients, especially MPs (the primary clients) in an impartial, non-partisan and professional manner. The enclosed documents tell the story of a six year struggle to ensure that the Freedom Charter [1] and the Constitution [2] become living documents and that the sacrifices of our heroes were not in vain. It is ironic, if not sad that the institution that is supposed to be at the vanguard to advance our democracy, denied employees their political rights. Mr Dingani fired me (and Abbass) in 2006 and wanted to discipline and fire colleagues that participated in the 2009 elections, even though I (and the SAHRC) pointed out that the workplace policy was not in line with the constitution.

Abbas and I were unfairly and illegally dismissed. Yes, this matter cannot be pursued 'legally', because of the 'limitations of statues', but the ethical principle stands – a gross injustice has been committed. I would appreciate your assistance to rectify this injustice and restore the ethical foundation of Parliament.

Enclosed, please find;

1. Report of the SAHRC

2. Motion in NCoP

3. E-mail: Possible disciplinary action

I hope to hear from you soon.

Best regards

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

(e-mail: 123@yahoo.com)

* Albert Mamabolo started out as a committee secretary at Parliament in 1996. He moved quickly through the ranks: control committee secretary, then unit manager. He passed away suddenly on 26 December 2011.

NOTES:

1. Chapter 1 - The People Shall Govern.

"Every man and woman shall have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate for all bodies which make laws. All the people shall be entitled to take part in the administration of the country"

2. Section 19(3)(b)

"Every adult has the right to stand for public office and if elected, to hold office"

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail:

\-----Original Message-----

From: G Campher

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:15:53

To: HC Schmidt <Democratic Alliance>

Subject: HC Schmidt- Motion

Hi Mr Schmidt

I phoned, but was unable to make an appointment, which would be difficult in any case due to work. I left docs with your secretary, which explain my situation. I tried all channels, except courts (money!) to get redress. Only hope is a 'motion' in NA. Mr VB Ndlovu (IFP) withdrew, Mr Bloem (COPE) tabled a 'motion without notice', but did not follow up with a 'motion with notice'. My hope is that you, as a DA member would table a motion. Even though the ANC will block it, it will be an embarrassment, because two weeks ago they celebrated '100 years of struggle for political rights', but they denied these rights from their workers for which Madiba was imprisoned for 27 years!

This will expose the ethics of the ANC.

I hope to hear from you.

Best regards

Gabriel

[* No response from the recipient. Adv HC Schmidt is an MP for the DA and I worked with him since 1999 (?) on the Defence Committee.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dismissal – September 2012

18 September 2012

The Presiding Officers

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sirs

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Your action to dismiss Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament is commendable. Instead of sweeping it his unethical behaviour under the carpet to avoid embarrassment, you exhibited ethical leadership and followed due process.

I wish to submit that an unthinkable injustice occurred over six years ago, which still tarnishes the image of Parliament (RSA), as the embodiment of democratic and constitutional values in the post-Apartheid South Africa.

It is an injustice, because two employees (Shamiel Abbas and myself) who stood as candidates in the March 2006 Local Government elections were unfairly and illegally dismissed. This is unthinkable, because many freedom fighters (you included) made sacrifices, even paid the ultimate price so that the political and economic ideals of the Freedom Charter and the People's Constitution could be lived, e.g. the right to stand for any legislative body.

When Abbas and I lost our livelihoods, our families suffered (still suffer) severe financial and other losses. I wrote many letters in the last seven years to the SAHRC, Public Protector, Mr Dingani, Mr Coetzee, MPs and you to right this wrong. I firmly believe that Parliament will never be at peace, gain the moral high ground and become the beacon of hope for the millions of hopeless South Africans, until it comes clean on this matter. Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice.

I hope that you and we can achieve peace in this generation, if not, then in the next...

Yours faithfully

(signed)

G CAMPHER

c.c. Mr MB Coetzee – Acting Secretary to Parliament

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 12

Pension –2006

'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins...'

(1 John 1:9)

Via E-mail:

Mpumelelo Warren Tabata <mtabata@parliament.gov.za> wrote:

Dear Mr Campher

Further to our telephonic conversation of yesterday, I wish to confirm that your cheque for payment is ready for collection. Kindly liaise with Ms Suraya Fortune of Finance at telephone number 403 3402 for the collection of the cheque.

We hope you find the above in order.

Kind regards

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa

Human Resources: Labour Relations

Mpumelelo Tabata

Tel: +2721403 3948

Fax: +2721403 2010

email: mtabata@parliament.gov.za

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>Gabriel Campher>>>responded

Date: Mon, 02 Oct. 2006

From: Gabriel Campher

Subject: RE: CCMA ARBITRATION

To: Mpumelelo Warren Tabata <Parliament-RSA>

Hi Mr Tabata

Thank you very much for the prompt service.

Cheers

Gabriel Campher

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

02 October 2006

The Manager : Labour Relations

Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sean

PENSION PAY-OUT

Thank you for your response, dated 22 September 2006. I wish to raise two issues; my pension pay-out and Mr Shamiel Abbas [note 1].

Pension Pay-out

The CCMA [2] arbitration hearing confirmed that I was dismissed by Parliament, which means that Parliament owes me a pension pay-out. In terms of the rules of Parliament's non-contributory pension scheme, an employee with more than 10 pensionable [3] service years, who is dismissed, is eligible for a pension pay-out. I was employed as a teacher for four years [4] and as a committee secretary for nine years and nine months, which make me eligible for a pension pay-out.

Mr Shamiel Abbas

The unknown 'voluntarily resignation' policy was consistently applied to me and to Abbas. I was awarded a two-month salary pay-out, in terms of the CCMA ruling - would it not be consistent, just and ethical that Parliament also give Abbas a two-month salary payout? Compensation should also be extended to his pension pay-out, because he worked for 15 years [5] at Parliament.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. Abbas stood as a ward candidate for a political party (Independent Democrats), while I stood as an independent ward candidate in the local government elections of 01 March 2006.

2. Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Established in terms of section 112 of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995). This is the sum of all the years worked in the public sphere, not only at Parliament.

3. 'Pensionable service' in terms of the Pension Scheme refers to any employment in the public service, not only at the Parliament of South Africa.

4. February 1992 to March 1996

5. This figure has to be confirmed, but I know that he has more than 20 years service in the public sector.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

11 October 2006

Dear Mr Campher

RE: PENSION PAY-OUT

Your letter dated 02 October 2006 addressed to Manager: Labour Relations refers.

Our response to your issues is as follows;

Pension Pay-Out

In terms of Parliament's Policy Directives and lmplementation Procedures you are regarded as having resigned from Parliament. As such, in terms of the rules of the Pension Scheme for Officers of Parliament you are not eligible for the discretionary gratuity, as you were not dismissed for misconduct.

Mr Shamiel Abbas

We are unable to respond to you on this issue since it is a confidential matter between Parliament and Mr Abbas.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

M Tabata

HR Practitioner Labour Relations

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

08 December 2006

Adv Lawrence Mushwana

The Public Protector of South Africa

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Dear Adv Mushwana

PENSION PAY-OUT

I would appreciate your assistance [1] to obtain my pension from my previous employer, Parliament (RSA).

According to Parliament's non-contributory pension scheme [2], an employee qualifies for a pension, if he/she is dismissed with more than 10 years pensionable service [3]. Even though I work at Parliament for less than 10 years [4], I have more than 10 pensionable [5] years, if my prior service to the state is added [6].

According to Parliament, I resigned when I (unknowingly) contravened a certain workplace policy. This matter was taken to the CCMA, which found that I was dismissed [7]. Even though Parliament had reservation about the award [8], they abided by the ruling, i.e. payment of two months salary. When I requested my pension [9], they reverted to their original position that I resigned [10].

I would appreciate your intervention in this matter, so that I can cut the umbilical cord with the People's Parliament, the epitome of democracy, justice and fairness in South Africa - as an employee, but not (never) as a citizen.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1: "The Public Protector has the power, as regulated by national legislation, to investigate any conduct in state affairs, or in public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice" (Section 182(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa). ["...and to take appropriate remedial action" – Section 182(1)(c)]

2: According to my recollection, employees had the option to join the contributory pension scheme (Government Employees Pension Fund) in 2003. I remained on the non-contributory scheme.

3: Article 8 (b) of "The Pension Scheme for Officers of Parliament" (PSOP) – see attachment.

4: 01 July 1996 to 06 March 2006.

5: See Article 1 (vi)(b)(bb) for definition of 'pensionable service' in PSOP .

6: See attached 'service record' of the Western Cape Education Department.

7: See the attached CCMA award.

8: See attached letter, dated 22 September 2006.

9: See attached letter, dated 02 October 2006.

10: See attached letter, dated 11 October 2006.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pension – 2007

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

24 January 2007

The Secretary to Parliament

Mr ZA Dingani

Parliament of the RSA

Cape Town

8000

Sir,

Re: Special Petition – Pension Payment to Mr G Campher

I have received this petition from Mr G Campher and have studied it and agreed with him to bring it to your attention for your approval and to pass it on to the Speaker of the National Assembly for tabling.

This is according to the rules of the National Assembly, Part 3 of Petitions, Rule 312, lodging of the Petitions.

Included herewith are: the Petition letter, Rules of Parliament, CCMA arbitration award, Service record (Western Cape Education Department) and the correspondence between Mr Campher and Mr M Tabata.

I hope that everything is in order for your approval. Your quick response with regards to this matter will be highly appreciated.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Mr Velaphi B. Ndlovu, MP

* Mr Ndlovu was (still is) an MP for the Inkatha Freedom Party. He was a member of the Portfolio Committee on Defence, as well as the Joint Standing Committee on Defence of which I was the committee secretary.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

25 January 2007

Hon VB Ndlovu, MP

National Assembly

Parliament

CAPE TOWN

8000

Dear Honourable Member

SPECIAL PETITION - PENSION PAYMENT TO MR G CAMPHER

I acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter dated 24 January 2007 with regard to the above.

The matter is receiving attention and you will receive further communication in due course.

Yours faithfully

(signed for – G Curnow)

ZA DINGANI

Secretary to Parliament

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

16 February 2007

Hon VB Ndlovu, MP

National Assembly

Parliament

CAPE TOWN

8001

Dear Honourable Member

Special Petition - Pension Payment to Mr G Campher

Your letter dated 24 January 2007 refers,

I am advised that the request by Mr Campher for the payment of pension benefits does not fall within the scope of a "special petition" as defined in the National Assembly rules.

The Rules of the Pension Scheme for Officers of Parliament govern whether Mr

Campher is entitled to be paid pension benefits or not. I have considered the documents that you attached to your letter and have decided to refer this matter to Parliament's Human Resources section for clarity on this matter.

Kindly inform Mr Campher accordingly.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

ZA Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

08 March 2007

Ms B Mbete, MP

Speaker: Parliament (RSA)

P.O. Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Madam Speaker

SPECIAL PETITION

I hope that this letter finds you in good health. I need your intervention in a matter that concerns a parliamentary official (Gabriel Campher), who was dismissed after he contravened a generally unknown policy of the Parliamentary Service.

The Service refused Mr Campher a pension, even though he satisfied the criteria, which are;

(a) He was dismissed and

(b) He has more than 10 years of pensionable service

Mr Campher petitioned Parliament (National Assembly), via the Secretary to Parliament, in terms of the parliamentary rules on 24 January 2007 to instruct the Parliamentary Service to pay his pension out.

The Secretary, however stated in the attached letter, dated l6 February 2007 that the matter was not a 'special petition', as defined in the "National Assembly rules" the reasoning is vague, unprofessional and unconvincing – at least the Secretary could have quoted the specific rule on which he, as a parliamentary official, based his procedural advice to a Member of Parliament.

According to Rule 315(a), the Speaker should refer petition that is of a special (or specific) nature to the Standing Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, whilst according to rule 315(b) a petition of a general nature should be referred to the relevant portfolio or appropriate committee. This is the only definitive reference to special petition in the rules – other than that I do not know what is meant by 'as defined in the National Assembly rules".

The Secretary also stated that he would refer the matter to the Human Resources (HR) section of the Service for clarity, in terms of the rules of the pension scheme. I do not believe that the Secretary is sincere and eager to resolve this matter, because almost three weeks have passed and he, as the head of this noble institution has not received clarity, yet. Mr Campher, however wrote to HR on 2 October 2006 to obtain his pension and within one week (9 October) they responded – stating that Mr Campher did not qualify, because according to the Service he resigned, even though the CCMA found that he was dismissed.

I would appreciate your intervention so that this unfortunate matter can be laid to rest.

Enclosed please find copies of the documents that I forwarded to the Secretary.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

MR VB NDLOVU, MP

Inkatha Freedom Party

[* This is a letter that I drafted for Mr Ndlovu, but he send a different (more diplomatic, less technical) letter]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

9 March 2007

Hon VB Ndlovu, MP

Parliament of South Africa

Cape Town

8000

Dear Hon. Mr Ndlovu

RE: SPECIAL PETITION

By direction of Ms B Mbete, the Speaker of the National Assembly, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 8 March 2007 on the above subject.

The Speaker has further directed me to inform you the honourable Mr Ndlovu that the matter is receiving attention and that she will get back on Mr Ndlovu as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

Adv. NP Cetywayo

Head: Office of the Speaker

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC PROTECTOR

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Provincial Office: Western Cape

Wale Street

Cape Town

8000

Please quote our ref: 7/2-13897I/O6WC

03 April 2007

Dear Mr G Campher

RE: YOUR COMPLAINT REGARDING PENSION

Your letter dated the 2lst of March 2007 refers;

As you are probably aware, your complaint was referred to Parliament and we were informed, among other things that you pension matter is being attended to.

Your continued patience will be appreciated.

Please furnish me with your telephone number.

With kind regards

(signed)

Motshidisi Lebeko (Adv)

Investigator

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

10 April 2007

Adv. Motshidisi Lebeko

Investigator: Office of the Public Protector

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Dear Adv. Lebeko

PROGRESS REPORT (REF. 7/2-13897/06/WC)

Thank you for your letter, dated 03 April 2007. The letter, which is supposedly a 'progress report' on my complaint is however not useful, because it raises more questions.

I appreciate the fact that the Office of the Public Protector dealt with 39 645 complaints and investigated and disposed of 33 485 cases over a two year period (2003/04 and 2004/05). This clearly indicates that the Office is understaffed and that employees are overworked and underpaid, with low morale – I know that feeling, I have been there. The situation is exacerbated by the high staff turnover and unstaffed posts, as well as the (past?) tension between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, which caused the creation of camps in the Office. In this context, I understand your letter.

Your report does not provide answers, instead it raises more questions!

1. When and to whom was my complaint referred to at Parliament?

2. When and by who were you informed that my pension 'is being attended to'?

3. What is the timeframe on this 'is being attended to', seeing that I am waiting since 2 October 2006 for my pension?

4. What do you mean 'among other things'?

5. Why did Parliament react negatively to my request of 2 October 2006?

6. Why did Parliament react positively to your intervention?

7. What is the timeframe on 'Your continued patience will be appreciated'?

My telephone numbers are: (021) 952 1234 (home) and 083 123456 (mobile)*, but I would appreciate it if communication can be formal, i.e. in writing.

I appreciate your sense of batho pele ** and your efforts to bring this matter to a close.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMHER

* The actual contact numbers were included in the original letter.

** batho pele – It means 'People first' in Sotho.

* This letter was not responded to.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Private Bag X63

Pretoria

0001

Enquiries: Tel: (012) 319-1000

Fax: (012) 325-0220

E-mail: enquiries@gepf.co.za

02 September 2007

Mr G Campher

BELHAR

7493

Dear Mr Campher

PAYMENT OF PENSION BENEFITS IN TERMS OF SECTION 13(1) OF THE

GENERAL PENSIONS ACT, 1979

As a result of your dismissal on 06 March 2006, you became entitled to the payment of

the following benefit: A gratuity amounting to R ***

From the gratuity, an amount of R *** was deducted and paid over to the Receiver of Revenue. The nett amount of R *** will be deposited into your bank account, on 18 September 2007.

Please do not hesitate to contact the Department, if you have any queries.

Kind regards.

(Signed)

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

26 September 2007

The Chief Investigator

Office of the Public Protector

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Dear Advocate

COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE

Someone from the Office of the Public Protector [1] telephoned me on Thursday, 20 September 2007 to establish whether I (a) received my pension and (b) was satisfied with the service of the Office [2]. The National Treasury informed the Office that the electronic transfer of the pension lump-sum into my banking account was made on 16 September 2007.

I responded positively to the deposit and indicated my satisfaction with and appreciation for the work of the Office. I also requested additional information, which related to the fact that when I requested my pension from Parliament, Parliament was of the opinion that I did not qualify [3], but it made a 180 degree turn when your Office approached it.

Your Office indicated, telephonically, on 20 September, that it received the same negative response from the Parliamentary Administration, when you initially intervened on my behalf. The Office then approached the Presiding Officers of Parliament [4], because they are the political and therefore final authority that approves the payment of pensions to employees, amongst other things. The Presiding Officers seemingly 'convinced' the Parliamentary Administration, which is headed by the Secretary to Parliament, to recommend the payment of my pension, so that they could approve it.

I appreciated this oral information, but would appreciate a copy of the correspondence between the Office of the Public Protector and Parliament, to fully understand Parliament's turn-about turn.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my appreciation for your assistance and professionalism in concluding this matter, without fear, favour or prejudice.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* No response was received]

NOTES:

1. I did not get her name due to the bad cellular telephone reception.

2. I registered this case with the Office of the Public Protector on 8 December 2006.

3. According to Parliament, I resigned, which disqualified me from receiving a pension. The CCMA, a statutory mediation and arbitration labour body, however found that I was fired and therefore eligible for a pension.

4. That is the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

30 October 2007

PO Box 712

Cape Town

8000

Please quote our ref: 7/2 – 13897 / O6 WC

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

RE: FINAL REPORT- YOUR COMPLAINT REGARDING PENSION

Please be advised that the investigation of your complaint against Parliament regarding your pension benefits has been finalized. Herewith is the closing report.

The request for information in your letter dated the 26th of September 2007 should be done in accordance with the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No.2 of 2000. The aforementioned request should be addressed to the Head of our Office, Adv Gary Pienaar.

With kind regards

(signed)

Motshidisi Lebeko (Adv)

Investigator

ATTACHMENT BELOW: FINAL / CLOSING REPORT

PUBLIC PROTECTOR

SOUTH AFRICA

Closing Report

File Reference Number: 7/2-13897/07 WC

By: M.J.J. Lebeko

Signature: (signed)

Date: 30 October 2007

Approved:

Supervisor's Name: A.T. Lose (signed)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report is submitted to Mr G Campher (the complainant) in terms of section 8(1) of the Public Protector Act, Act 23 of 1994.

1.2 The Office of the Public Protector (the Office) is established by the Constitution to strengthen constitutional democracy by investigating matters such as maladministration, undue delay, abuse of power and/or any conduct resulting in improper prejudice by an organ of State in order to enhance fairness and efficiency in public administration.

2. COMPLAINT

2.1 The complainant requested the Office to investigate the reasons why his former employer, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (Parliament), was refusing to pay him his pension benefits.

2.2 The complainant alleged that:

2.2.1 He was employed as a Committee Secretary by Parliament for more than nine years. Before joining Parliament, he was employed as an educator for four years.

2.2.2 On the 1st of March 2006, he stood as an independent candidate in the local government elections.

2.2.3 He was dismissed by Parliament for having stood in as a candidate in the local government elections without the consent of Parliament.

2.2.4 He took the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and during 2006 the CCMA ruled that he was unfairly dismissed by Parliament.

2.2.5 Parliament abided by the CCMA ruling and paid him a two months' salary.

2.2.6 When he demanded his pension money, Parliament indicated that he resigned and was not dismissed; therefore he did not qualify to get his pension benefits.

3. INVESTIGATION

3.1 The Office communicated with various Parliamentary officials and the complainant.

3.2 The Office requested Parliament to explain as to whether or not the non-payment of the complainant's pension benefits is not contrary to Rule 8(b) of the Pension Scheme for Officers of Parliament. The aforementioned Rule provides that;

"If an officer is dismissed on account of his or her misconduct –

(b) after the completion of not less than ten years' pensionable service, the case of such officer shall be referred to the Presiding Officers, who may make such award in respect of such officer as they may deem fit.".

3.3 The Office requested the Human Resources Section of Parliament to explain why Parliament was refusing to pay the complainant's pension benefits, because it appears that he was dismissed and he has more than ten years pensionable service.

3.4 The Office was informed, by Parliament's Human Resources Manager, Mr I Moorad, among other things, whilst investigating another complaint involving Parliament, that:

3.4.1 The complainant and another former employee of Parliament were informed that they do not qualify to receive pension money from Parliament, because they belonged to Parliament's non-contributory pension scheme. The aforementioned complainants did not join the Government Employees Pension Fund.

3.4.2 In terms of Parliament's non-contributory pension scheme, a staff member must retire from Parliament in order to qualify to receive their pension.

3.4.3 The complainant failed to obtain permission to stand as a candidate for local government elections, as required by parliamentary policy directives.

3.5 In terms of the Parliamentary Staff Policy Directive: termination of Service, it is provided in Rule 4 that:

"4(1) "If a staff member accepts a nomination as a candidate for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, she or he is regarded as having resigned from the Parliamentary Service voluntarily... "

It is further provided in the above Rule that a staff member:

"(2) may with the written authorization of the appointing authority, accept a nomination or appointment as a candidate for election... if the appointing authority deems it to be in the interest if the Service..."

4. CLOSURE

4.1 From the information at our disposal, it appears that the complainant did not contribute any money towards his pension. The complainant belonged to Parliament's non-contributory scheme and did not contribute to the Government Employees Pension Fund.

4.2 The complainant was paid his pension benefits in accordance with Rule 8(b) of the Pension Scheme for Officers of Parliament, after the intervention of the Office.

4.3 In view of the above, the file in this matter has been closed.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 13

Illegal SAHRC - 2008

'We are consumed by evil because of keeping close to it, not because of keeping away from it.'

Kikuyi proverb (Kenya)

'News24' Article

Rights body underfunded

26 November 2001

Johannesburg - South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) says official indifference has robbed it of much of its independence it needs to fulfil its obligations. It remained underfunded the SAHRC added.

"After six years of operation, it is very discouraging to have to report that questions about the independence of the commission have not been resolved," the commission said in the introduction to its fifth annual report, publish on Monday.

The SAHRC said it had for some years been deeply concerned about the mechanism used to determine and allocate its budget. "To that extent the commission made proposals for the amendment of the Human Rights Commission Act. It must be admitted that there has been some progress in that the commission is now invited to make presentations to the Medium Term Budget Framework process on its annual budget," the commission said.

"The problem is that National Treasury continues to relate to the commission through the Justice Department. This means that we have no direct means of having queries and problems resolved."

The annual report's writers said "another example of this insensitivity to the independence of national institutions" was the lack of consultation.

The Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) of 1999 prescribed that constitutional institutions "may not borrow money, nor issue guarantee, indemnity security, nor enter into any transaction that binds the institution or entity to any future commitment".

The SAHRC said this made it dependent on the government, because it could not rent property its own name or acquire property for its sole use.

"This is unacceptable especially as the Human Rights Commission Acts states clearly that the commission 'shall be a juristic person'. It can sue and be sued in its own name.

At a stroke the rights and privileges of an independent institution have been removed without the participation of the commission," the report charged.

"The provisions of the PFMA, as it stands raise serious difficulties as it contradicts the Human Rights Commission Acts."

Of similar concern to the commissioners and staff was that the body – now five years old – still lacked proper terms and conditions of employment.

"So bizarre is this situation that commissioners' salaries lag far behind those of comparable civil service post designations and salary increments due to members of the commission are rarely, if ever paid on time."

The commission was also concerned about treatment of its reports by Parliament.

"The rules of Parliament still do not allow meaningful participation by national institutions, our reports still do not have a portal that fits in parliamentary procedures and there is no committee dedicated to receiving and reviewing the reports of the commission."

A further concern was that the commission's adequate budget meant it was unable to execute functions imposed by the Promotions of Access to Information Act, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, the Public Finance Management Act and section 184(3) of the Constitution.

"All these laws have given additional responsibilities to the human rights commission, but no adequate financial provision has been made in the budget allocated," the report said. "Our efforts at conducting dialogue with the National Treasury on these matters have not elicited any understanding of our concerns."

"Given the enormity of the challenges explained above, t is crucial that the SAHRC be provided with adequate resources to carry out its constitutional obligations."

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL CHARGES

[* Context: The criminal charges below relate to the efforts of certain individuals and institutions to undermine the work of the South African Human Rights Commission. They did not provide the requested information to the Commission. In addition, they did not ensure that the Commission was legally constituted, so that it could execute its constitutional mandate.]

I, Gabriel Campher, hereby wish to lay criminal charges, in terms of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, against the persons and organ of state, listed below.

1. Mr S September

2. Mr M Tabata

3. National Parliament

4. Ms B Mbete

5. Ms B Mabandla

6. Mr E Surty

7. Mr TM Mbeki

8. Mr K Motlanthe

Annexure:

A - Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994

B1 – Letter to the Constitutional Court, 10 May 2006

B2 – Letter from the Constitutional Court, 29 May 2006

C1 – Letter (SAHRC to Parliament, 4 February 2008

C2 – Letter (Parliament to SAHRC, 11 February 2008

C3 – Letter (SAHRC to Gabriel Campher, 20 March 2008

D – Interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993

E – Newspaper article (Cape Times, 9 December 2008

F – 'Asmal Report', 31 July 2007

G – Letter (Gabriel Campher to Ms B Mbete, 21 January 2008

Mr S September

(Unit Manager: Labour Relations Unit – Parliament: RSA)

Contact: Tel (021) 403 2911, Address: Parliament St, Cape Town, 8000

The charge:

Contravention of sections, 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, (the Act) [Annexure A].

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of sections 18(e), 18(h) and 18(i) of the Act.

The detail:

Mr September's non-cooperation, in terms of sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Act, is an offence in terms of section 18(i), because he did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission.

He hindered and obstructed the work of the Commission, in terms of sections 4(2) of the Act, through his non-cooperation. This is an offence, in terms of section 18(h) of the Act.

Mr M Tabata

(Unit Manager: Labour Relations Unit – Parliament: RSA)

Contact: Tel (021) 403 2911, Address: Parliament St, Cape Town, 8000

The charge:

Contravention of sections, 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, (the Act) [Annexure A].

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of section 18(e), 18(h) and 18(i) of the Act.

The detail:

Mr Tabata's non-cooperation, in terms of sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Act, is an offence in terms of section 18(i), because he did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission.

He hindered and obstructed the work of the Commission, in terms of sections 4(2) of the Act, through his non-cooperation. This is an offence, in terms of section 18(h) of the Act.

National Parliament

Contact: Tel (021) 403 2911, Address: Parliament Street, Cape Town, 8000

The charge:

Contravention of sections 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, (the Act) [Annexure A], read with section 3(1) the Act, as well as sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993 [Annexure B].

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of section 18(h) and 18(i) of the Human Rights Commission Act.

The detail:

National Parliament did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission, as per sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act. This is an offence in terms of section 18(i).

The lack of assistance led to the Commission being hindered in its work, which is a contravention of section 4(2) and an offence in terms of section 18(h) of the Act.

In 2002, National Parliament, which has to nominate persons to the President for appointment as Commissioners of the Human Rights Commission, did not enforce section 115(1) and 115(3) of the Interim Constitution [Annexure B] that dealt with the appointment of eleven Commissioners. In November 2008, National Parliament, nominated only one person (Ms Pregs Govender) to the President for appointment to the South African Human Rights Commission, instead of five persons, as required by the law. The Commission should consist of eleven Commissioners – that is a legal requirement.

The effective functioning of the commissioning necessitated;

1. The application of the legal framework, i.e. the enforcement of the appointment of the eleven nominated persons to the Commission. The appointment of eleven persons would have been the required assistance in terms of the Interim Constitution and the Act.

2. The staggered appointment of new Commissioners would have ensured continuity and the appropriate performance of the Commission [Annexure F, p22/3]. This was provided for by the different length of appointments and the appointment of part-time or full-time Commissioners.

This lack of assistance hindered the work of the Commission.

Ms B Mbete

(Former Speaker: National Assembly – Parliament: RSA)

Contact: Tel (012) 300 5200, Address: Union Buildings, Pretoria, 0001

The charge:

Contravention of sections 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, (the Act) [Annexure A], read with section 3(1) the Act, as well as sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993 [Annexure B].

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of section 18(h) and 18(i) of the Human Rights Commission Act.

The detail:

Ms Mbete was informed on 21 January 2008 [Annexure E] that the South African Human Rights Commission was unwilling or unable to perform its duties. She ignored the letter and did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission, as per sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Act. This is an offence in terms of section 18(i) of the said Act.

The lack of assistance led to the Commission being hindered in its work, which is a contravention of section 4(2) and an offence in terms of section 18(h) of the Act.

As the Presiding Officer of National Assembly, to which the Commission has to account, she could have investigated the shortcomings of the Commission and provided the necessary assistance. This should have entailed the nomination of more Commissioners to the Commission, so that it could become a legitimate body, as per section 115(1) and 115(3) of the Interim Constitution [Annexure B], read with section 3(1) of the Act. [Annexure A].

The effective functioning of the commission necessitated;

1. The appointment of eleven persons in terms of the Interim Constitution and the Act.

2. The staggered appointment of new Commissioners would have ensured continuity and the appropriate performance of the Commission [Annexure F, p22/3].

This lack of assistance hindered the work of the Commission, which is an offence in terms of section 18(h) of the Act.

Ms B Mabandla

(Former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs)

Contact: Tel (012) 300 5200, Address: Union Buildings, Pretoria, 0001

The charge:

Contravention of sections 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, read with section 3(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, as well as sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993.

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of section 18(h) and 18(i) of the Human Rights Commission Act.

The detail:

Ms Mabandla did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission, as per sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act. She failed to update the Act, which does not take into account new developments, e.g. the repeal of the Interim Constitution and the socio-economic rights as per the (new) Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 [see Annexure F, p171/2]. This has a negative effect on the mandate, functioning and performance of the Commission.

Mr E Surty

(Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs)

Contact: Tel (012) 300 5200, Address: Union Buildings, Pretoria, 0001

The charge:

Contravention of sections 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, read with section 3(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, as well as sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993.

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of section 18(h) and 18(i) of the Human Rights Commission Act.

The detail:

Mr Surty did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission, as per sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act. He failed to update the Act, which does not take into account new developments, e.g. the repeal of the Interim Constitution and the socio-economic rights as per the (new) Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 [see Annexure F, p171/2]. This has a negative effect on the mandate, functioning and performance of the Commission.

Mr TM Mbeki

(Former President of the Republic of South Africa)

Contact: Tel (012) 300 5200, Address: Union Buildings, Pretoria, 0001

The charge:

Contravention of sections 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994 (the A)ct.

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of section 18(h) and 18(i) of the Human Rights Commission Act.

The detail:

Mr Mbeki did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission, as per sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act. He refused to appoint the legally required eleven commissioners, as per section 1115(1) of the Interim Constitution [Annexure B & F, p22/3]. This had a negative effect on the mandate, functioning and performance of the Commission. It also meant that the Commission has been functioning as an illegal entity.

The lack of assistance hindered the work of the Commission, which is a contravention of section 4(2) and an offence in terms of section 18(h) of the Act.

Mr K Motlanthe

(President of the Republic of South Africa)

Contact: Tel (012) 300 5200, Address: Union Buildings, Pretoria, 0001

The charge:

Contravention of sections 4(2), 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994 (the Act).

The above-mentioned contravention is an offence in terms of section 18(h) and 18(i) of the Human Rights Commission Act.

The detail:

Mr Motlanthe did not provide the necessary assistance to the Commission, as per sections 4(3) and 7(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act. He failed to question the nomination of only one Commissioner (Ms Pregs Govender) in November 2008, instead of five persons to achieve the legal requirement of eleven commissioners, as per section 1115(1) of the Interim Constitution. This has a negative effect on the functioning and performance of the Commission. It also meant that the Commission has been functioning as an illegal entity in terms of section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution.

The lack of assistance hinders the work of the Commission, which is a contravention of section 4(2) of the Act and an offence in terms of section 18(h) of the Act.

Criminal charges laid by;

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

22 December 2008

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 14

Illegal SAHRC - January 2009

'What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works?'

\- James (The Book of James 2:14)

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER: WESTERN CAPE

Ref: 1/2/2/1 (2009/01)

Enquiries: Director Slingers

Telephone: (021) 417 7115

Facsimile: (021) 417 7278

20 January 2009

Mr Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

BELHAR INQUIRY 3/12/2008: FAILURE TO AFFORD THE NECESSARY SUPORT TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHST COMMISSION

1. Your request that a criminal case be registered for investigation in terms of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1994, refers.

2. Your request emanate from a complaint which you lodged with the SA Human Rights Commission. Your file was closed by the Commission because the matter was also referred to the Constitutional Court for consideration.

3. The Constitutional Court has declined to entertain the matter owing to its functions and jurisdiction. In the correspondence from the Court, dated 29 May 2006, it was advised that the Human Rights Commission would be in a better position to deal with your case.

4. This office is also of the opinion that the alleged violation of your rights in this case and the allegations that the Commission did not receive the necessary support from your employer and other responsible persons to finalise your investigation, is not a matter to be investigated by the South African Police Service. The Commission has the necessary statutory powers and functions to, in its own name, take action against persons suspected of having failed to give the necessary support to the Commission.

5. Taking the above into consideration, you are kindly advised to inform the Human Rights Commission of the said correspondence from the Constitutional Court and request that your file be re-opened or register a new compliant. This process has been confirmed by Mr Leo McCauley of the Commission. He may be contacted at 021-4262277.

6. The matter is hereby regarded as finalized and the enquiry file is closed.

(signed)

M Slingers (Director)

Legal Services: SAPS (Western Cape)

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

20 January 2009

Ms G Mahlangu-Nkabinde, MP

Speaker - National Assembly

Parliament (RSA)

P O Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Madam Speaker

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

I write this letter on a special day – a day on which the first black person will be inaugurated as the President of the USA. Yes, America can! Yes, American democracy is flourishing! I firmly believe that South Africa can as well – we started so well in 1994, but somehow we lost direction or is it the political will?

The chapter nine institutions in the Constitution have been established to protect and promote our fragile democracy. These institutions have been given special powers by the People, through their representatives in Parliament, to execute their constitutionally mandated functions. Each year they report to the People, via the National Assembly, on their achievements and challenges in strengthening democracy, but I am afraid that there are too many unnecessary challenges.

In 2002, National Parliament, which has to nominate persons to the President of the country for appointment as Commissioners of the Human Rights Commission, nominated 11 persons as commissioners to President Mbeki, as per section 115 of the Interim Constitution [Annexure A]. The President, however only appointed six people. Parliament should have enforced sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Interim Constitution that explicitly stated that the Commission shall consist of eleven Commissioners and that the President should appoint the nominated people, "whenever it becomes necessary". Seemingly, Parliament's legal advisers concentrated on the HRC Act (Annexure B), which raised the number of Commissioners. Section 115 of the Interim Constitution is still valid, even though the Act has been repealed (Annexure C).

In 2008, National Parliament could have corrected the situation, but nominated only one person (Ms Pregs Govender) to President Motlanthe for appointment to the SAHRC, instead of an additional six persons, as required by the law [Annexure A] to ensure theta the SAHRC was legally constituted.

I strongly believe that this Third Parliament should, before its term expires, ensure that the SAHRC is legally constituted by nominating five more people. Yes, Parliament's leadership will be criticized for its handling of the saga, but this is a defining moment. This moment to regain the moral high ground and to demonstrate political will. If not taken, it will be an Achilles heel for the Fourth parliament and a continuation of the weakening of the SAHRC, as well as the belief and hope of the South African People in our democracy – a hard-fought democracy for which many sacrifices were made.

People come and go, but the institutions that one leave behind will be testimony to the constitutional values and principles that one wants the next generation or leadership to build on. We are not in leadership or government ourselves, but for the People, who have made us leaders.

Attached, please find the following annexure;

(a) The interim constitution

(b) The Human Rights Commission Act

(c) Interpretations Act

I hope that this input will add value to the strengthening of our constitutional institutions.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

MR G CAMPHER

c.c.

Mr ZA Dingani: Secretary to Parliament (RSA)

Mr K Motlanthe: President of the RSA

Ms B Sterris: Legal Officer (SAHRC: Western Cape Province)

Mr J Kollapen: Chairperson (SAHRC)

[* The annexure below are for the benefit of the reader. Hard copies were send to the Speaker]

ANNEXURE:

A. CONSTITUTION FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Act 200 of 1993)

Section 115 (1)

(1) There shall be a Human Rights Commission, which shall consist of a chairperson and 10 members who are fit and proper persons, South African citizens and broadly representative of the South African community.

B. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT (Act 54 of 1994)

Section 3(1)

3. (1) The members of the Commission referred to in section 115(1) of the Constitution may be appointed as full-time or part-time members and shall hold office for such fixed term as the President may determine at the time of such appointment, but not exceeding seven years: Provided that not less than five members are appointed on a full-time basis: Provided further that

C. INTERPRETATION ACT (Act 33 of 1957)

Section 12(1)

"Where any law repeals and re-enacts with or without modifications, any provision of a former law, reference in any other law to the provision so repealed shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted."

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - February 2009

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 403 3980

Facsimile: +27 21 403 9462

09 February 2009

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

I acknowledge your letter of 20 January 2009 to the Speaker, Ms Mahlangu-Nkabinde.

Your concerns will be brought to her attention.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Ms Ellen Kora

Parliamentary Liaison Officer: Office of the Speaker

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

9 February 2009

Ms Sandra Botha

Parliamentary Leader

Democratic Alliance

Dear Honourable Botha

NOT IN MY NAME

In the past few years the attacks on the integrity and independence of our institutions of democracy have become more intense and more ridiculous. However, some of the attacks were self-inflicted.

Parliament

This is the supreme platform of democracy for the South African People to debate issues that are in the national interest. It is supposed to be a People's Parliament, but it has become a place of greed, self-interest and shame. Let me just mention seven cases.

1. Scandal - Arms deal

2. Scandal - Travelgate

3. Farce – Review of the President's suspension of the National Director of Prosecution

4. Farce – Legislation to terminate the Directorate of Special Operations (Scorpions)

5. Incompetence - Appointment of the Human Rights Commission's Commissioners

6. Nepotism - Top management (Secretary of NCoP)

7. Unconstitutional - Dismissal of employees, who stood in the 2006 Local Government Elections (If you want more on this matter, please contact me).

Judiciary (Criminal Justice System)

The judiciary is the third Arm-of-Government that ensures that the laws (made by MPs on behalf of the People) are implemented - if not, retribution follows. It should be seen as impartial and independent, so that retribution is accepted by offenders, if not, we will have anarchy. Our criminal justice system has however become a political football, as some people are (seen to be) more equal than others before the law'. Let me just mention two cases.

1. National SAPS Commissioner Selebi

2. Mr Zuma

Chapter 9 Constitutional Bodies

The Prof Asmal report indicated that these bodies are under-resourced, have confusing appointment (and other) procedures, have independence issues and are not given enough contact time by Parliament. One of them, the SAHRC, is in fact illegally constituted! (see attachment)

Declaration

I, Celia-Sandra Botha, a Member of Parliament, have been whining and moaning for the last five years about the weakening of our institutions of democracy. These things have been happening in my name, because most of it happened here in Parliament or in Parliament's name. I am an honourable Person, who represents the People in this magnificent institution - I am, because of the People! Now is the time! I must do something substantive! Not because it is the end of the Third Parliament and Election Time, but because I want to strengthen our fragile democracy for the benefit of this generation and the next...

Substance

The illegally constituted SAHRC can be dealt with, in your name, in many substantive ways;

1. In Parliament: debate, walk-out, go-slows, etc.

2. The courts: an order to force Parliament to do a proper job.

3. In the streets: mobilise the people – marches, gatherings, concerts, etc.

4. In the media: statements, letters, adverts, articles, conferences, etc.

5. Petition: to the Speaker, President, Constitutional Court

6. Publication: write a book, poem, article, newsletter, website, chain e-mails, etc.

7. Talks: conferences; seminars; at churches, sport clubs, schools, universities, etc.

\--------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

[OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION-

SANDRA BOTHA, MP]

13 February 2009

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Sir

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

Thank you for your informed and very valid concerns.

These are without exception issues which have been raised and debated in parliament by various members of the caucus and the leadership.

I will, however, once again make the relevant spokespersons aware of what you have raised and request that they keep working at resolving them.

Sincerely

(signed)

For SANDRA BOTHA, MP

[* I wrote the same letter to the leadership of other political parties represented in Parliament. Only the DA responded, even though it was a mere acknowledgement.]

The letter was also send to:

1. Ms P De Lille: Parliamentary and National Leader (Independent Democrats)

2. Rev K Meshoe: Parliamentary and National Leader (ACDP)

3. Dr C Mulder: Parliamentary and National Leader (Freedom Front Plus)

4. Mr M Buthelezi: Parliamentary and National Leader (Inkatha Freedom Party)

5. Gen B Holomisa: Parliamentary and National Leader (United Democratic Movement)

6. Mr Ditshetelo: Parliamentary Leader (United Christian Democratic Party)

7. Mr Pheko: Parliamentary and National Leader (Pan-Africanist Congress)

8. Mr T Godi: Parliamentary and National Leader (African People's Convention)

9. Ms Rajbally: Parliamentary Leader (Minority Front)

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SPEAKER

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 403 3980

Facsimile: +27 21 403 9462

11 February 2009

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Sir

RE: ALLEGATION: SAHRC ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED

Your letter dated 20 January 2009 dated to the dressed to Madam Speaker where in you allege that the number of commissioners appointed by the President fell short of the number prescribed by the Interim Constitution refers.

As you might be aware the process of appointing members of the Commission is set out in section 3 of the Constitution and according to your letter, it has been followed to the letter. Consequently it cannot be validly argued that the members of the commission currently serving at the SAHRC have been illegally appointed or constituted.

Section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution dealing with the establishment and appointments of members of the Commission should be read together with section (3)(1) of the SA Human Rights Act. The Constitution prescribes the maximum number of members of the Commission whilst on the other hand the SAHRC Act prescribes the minimum number of members who shall be appointed on a full-time basis. This means therefore that, at any given time, the Commission must at least have a minimum of have members appointed on a full-time basis.

It is submitted that the prescribed minimum number of five full-time members would arguably be sufficient for the Commission to function and be able to discharge its mandate.

Members of the Commission are, from time to time, and as need arises appointed by the President and the existence of a vacancy, at any given time, could not be interpreted to mean that the commission has been illegally constituted.

Notwithstanding the above, I must take this opportunity to thank you for showing interest in matters of our democracy.

Kind regards

(signed)

N Madlala-Routledge, MP

Deputy Speaker

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - March 2009

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 403 3980

Facsimile: +27 21 403 9462

17 March 2009

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

COMPOSITION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Thank you for your letter of 20 January 2009 in which you allege that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) is "illegally constituted".

The provisions of section 242 of the Constitution, read with Schedule 7, are clear that section 1115 of the interim constitution is repealed. It follows that there is no provision in law that required that the SAHRC "shall consist of a chairperson and 10 members", although there must at least be five full-time members. The latter requirement has been fully complied with and the SAHRC is therefore not illegally constituted. In fact, the SAHRC was constituted with section 193 of the Constitution and the HRC Act all times.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee to nominate a person to fill the vacancy in the SAHRC in 2008 was limited to filling one vacancy. This Committee could therefore not fill the number of vacancies you proposed.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

PM LEBEKO

Acting Manager: Office of the Speaker

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - April 2009

29 April 2009

Mr J Kollapen

Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission

Private Bag X 2700

Houghton

2041

Dear Mr Kollapen

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

On 26 April 2009 a newspaper advertisement was placed for five full-time Commissioners for the SAHRC. I am a worried citizen, because we actually have to appoint ten Commissioners to support the one that was appointed in 2008. Until then, the SAHRC will be illegally constituted!

The SAHRC was established by section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993), which clearly states that "(t)here shall be a Human Rights Commission, which shall consist of a chairperson and 10 members", i.e. 11 members. Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act (Act 45, 1994) merely refers to the type of membership, i.e. full-time or part-time, but it does refer to section 115(1) of the repealed Interim Constitution and therefore it revives section 115(1)!

In 2002, the SAHRC was however constituted in terms of the Human Rights Commission Act and not in terms of the still in force section 115(1) of the repealed Interim Constitution. This 'legal oversight' was raised with the Speaker of the National Assembly on 20 January 2009. A copy of the letter was send to the President, Secretary to Parliament and yourself.

The responses were however off the mark. I therefore appeal directly to you, as Chairperson of the SAHRC, to intervene, because the SAHRC is too important to the protection and promotion of our constitutional democracy, to be illegally constituted.

Enclosed, please find;

1. Letter: G Campher to Speaker- 20 Jan 2009

(a) Annexure (Interim Constitution)

(b) Annexure (HRC Act)

(c) Annexure (Interpretation Act)

2. Letter: Deputy Speaker to G Campher- 11 Feb 2009

3. Letter: Speaker's Office to G Campher- 17 Mar 2009

If you need any further information, please contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - May 2009

07 May 2009

Mr M Sisulu, MP

Speaker - National Assembly

Parliament (RSA)

P O Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Speaker

IN DEFENCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY

Congratulations on being elected as Speaker of the People's Parliament, as envisaged in the Freedom Charter. I am however afraid that our Parliament is not people-centred, but an oppressor of the political rights of its employees. I wish to raise two issues; (a) my unconstitutional dismissal by Parliament and (b) the illegally constituted Human Rights Commission.

ISSUE 1

A colleague and I were fired by Parliament (RSA), when we stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government Elections. I referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). It pronounced on 20 April 2007 that there was a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was necessary. Since then they have been non-committal to execute their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice' (see the letter to the Public Protector).

ISSUE 2

The SAHRC is illegally constituted. See enclosed letters (2 & 3).

Enclosed, please find the following;

1. Letter: G Campher to Public Protector- 23 Apr 2009

2. Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (SAHRC)- 29 Apr 2009

3. Legal Opinion (State Law Advisers)- 18 Dec 2008 *

FREEDOM AT LAST?

My struggle over the last three years culminated on 6 March 2009 in the first (and hopefully last) protest march TO Parliament AGAINST the political oppression of Parliament's employees. This result - the suspension of the unconstitutional workplace policy and two employees' candidature for the National Assembly in the 2009 general election!!

I would appreciate your intervention in these matters, because it goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy – a democracy for which many heroes & heroines gave their freedom; even their lives.

If you need any further information, please contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[The Speaker did not respond to the letter.]

* Legal Opinion from the Office of the State Law Advisor – see below.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE LAW ADVISOR: CAPE TOWN

12th Floor, Atterbury House, 9 Riebeeck Street, Cape Town, 8001

Tel (021) 441 4900, Fax (021) 421 7996

Ref: 123/2008*

Enquiries: H Jones, T Markus, M Setona * (not real names)

Tel: (021) 441-4917

E-mail: HJones@justice.gov.za *

18 December 2008

Mr Gabriel Campher

Coordinator: Standing Committee on Community Development

Western Cape Provincial Legislature

CAPE TOWN

8000

Dear Mr Campher

Re: Legal validity of a repealed Act when reference thereto is made in an existing legislation
Introduction

We have been requested by the you, Coordinator: Standing Committee on Community Development W-Cape Provincial Parliament to furnish advice on an urgent basis on whether sections of a repealed Act still have force when current legislation refers to it. In section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution (a repealed act), reference is made to the establishment and size of the Human Rights Commission. This is used in section 3 of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, (a current act), as a legal framework for the appointment and removal of Commissioners. The question is: 'Does section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution still have legal force?

Analysis of the legal position with regard to repealed Acts

The answer to the issue in question is found in section 12 (1) of the Interpretation Act which provides as follows:

Where any law repeals and re-enacts with or without modifications, any provision of a former law, reference in any other law to the provision so repealed shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.

Section 2 of the same Act defines law to mean "... any law, proclamation, ordinance, Act of Parliament or other enactment having the force of law." Section 1 of the Act states that: the provisions of this Act shall apply to the interpretation of every law (as in this Act defined) in force, at or after the commencement of this Act in the Republic or in any portion thereof, and to the interpretation of all by-laws, unless there is something in the language or context of the law, by-law, rule, regulation or order repugnant to such provisions or unless the contrary intention appears therein.

Secondly, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, in terms of item 20(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution, provides that the Human Rights Commission is a constitutional institution. In terms of item 20 (2) thereof, a constitutional institution established in terms of the previous Constitution (Interim Constitution) continues to function in terms of the legislation applicable to it, and anyone holding office as a commission member continues to hold office in terms of the legislation applicable to that office, subject to-

(a) any amendment or repeal of that legislation; and

(b) consistency with the new constitution.

In the case of Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Xaba 2004 (1) SACR 149 (D) the court applied section 12 (1) (a) of the Interpretation Act to incorporate the definition of police in the Police Act of 1958 referred to in section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the South African Police Act 68 of 1995. In so doing, the court confirmed that a reference to the repealed Act in other legislation renders that part of the repealed legislation valid and still in force. This is consistent with item 20(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution, which seeks to embellish the position further by adding that the part of the repealed Act referred to must also be consistent with the new Constitution.

Our legal advice

In terms of the aforesaid and in line with section 12 of the Interpretation Act and item 20(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution, section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution has been saved in as far as it relates to the establishment of the Human Rights Commission. Section 115 is still in force, and it would be invalid only if it was inconsistent with the Constitution, due to unconstitutionality thereof. Section 12 of the Interpretation Act saves the section on its own, the fact that it is still consistent with the constitution cement its validity even further.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

SENIOR STATE LAW ADVISERS

For OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE LAW ADVISER

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: "Mamosadi Moletsane" MMoletsane@sahrc.org.za

To: G Campher

Fri, May 22, 2009 2:17 pm

Subject: Letter from SAHRC

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Campher

Enclosed please find letter for your attention.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

<<Gabriel Campher 22 May.doc>>

Regards,

Sadi

Office of the Chairperson: SAHCR

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Private Bag X2700

Houghton

2041

Telephone: (011) 484 8300

Facsimile: (021) 484 7149

Website: http://www.sahrc.org.za

Our Ref: WC/26/459-BS

22 May 2009

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

RE: ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

The above-mentioned matter and your letter received by the Office of the Chairperson on the 11th of May 2009 refers.

By direction of the Chairperson, kindly be informed that his office acknowledges receipt of the said letter and the contents thereof have been noted.

Please be advised that the South African Human Rights Commission shall be meeting with the Speaker of the National Assembly in the near future and this matter shall be raised with him.

Mr Kollapen would like to thank you for bringing the matter to the attention of the South African Human Rights Commission.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Sadi Moletsane

Office of the Chairperson (SAHRC)

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - June 2009

Via E-mail:

Subject: RE: UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISMISSAL BY PARLIAMENT AND ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

From: "Ellen Kora" <ekora@parliament.gov.za>

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: Thu, June 25, 2009 11:45 am

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Gabriel

I acknowledge receipt of your letter to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr M Sisulu dated 07 May 2009. I also refer to our telephonic conversation in respect of the above.

I want to reiterate that your submission is one of the many others received, and is receiving attention. As soon as all the necessary advice has been co-ordinated a response will be forwarded to you.

From my side I wish you success with all your future endeavours.

Ms Ellen Kora

Parliamentary Liaison Officer

Office of the Speaker

[* No further communication was received from the Office of the Speaker]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - July 2009

Via E-mail:

Subject: RE: Letter from SAHRC

From: "Mamosadi Moletsane" <MMoletsane@sahrc.org.za>

To: G Campher

Date: Wed, July 1, 2009 11:40 am

Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Campher

Please be advised that the Human Rights Commission is going to Parliament next week and the Chairperson shall raise the matter* with the Speaker then.

Regards,

Sadi

[* This matter was the 'illegally constituted SAHRC']

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail:

\-----Original Message-----

From: Gabriel Campher

To: Mamosadi Moletsane

Subject: Re: Letter from SAHRC

Dear Ms Moletsane

Thank you for the feedback letter.

Regards

G Campher

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PARLIAMENTARY MONITORING GROUP*

Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development

Date of meeting: 8 July 2009

Chairperson: Adv N Ramatlodi, MP (ANC)

[* This committee has been identified to interact with the SAHRC on behalf of Parliament. The meeting covered wide ranging issues, but only matters that pertained to its functioning have been extracted. The bold print is my emphasis.]

Summary of meeting

The chairperson and the Commissioners of the South African Human Rights Commission ('the Commission') highlighted the purpose and function of the Commission, its focus areas of equality, non-discrimination and poverty, and its international work and obligations. They reminded the Committee that outstanding issues included the need to ratify an International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to amend the Commission's founding legislation to bring it in line with the new constitution, to appoint an information officer, to ensure that regulations were promulgated under the Equality Act, and to promote the Equality Courts. Many bodies were still not providing cooperation to the Commission, unless subpoenaed to do so, and the legislation should be amended to make it compulsory for a response be submitted to recommendations.

The Commission was concerned that the vulnerable group of the elderly was not receiving enough attention, nor was their immense talents being tapped and promoted. There were only five commissioners, instead of the eleven envisaged by the Act. Members queried the reasons behind the failure to ratify the Covenant, the real reasons why the Equality Courts were not being used, and had been closed in some areas. Members felt that the most pressing matters were the amendments sought to the legislation and the appointment of commissioners, and that this Committee should itself consider the appointments, rather than and ad hoc committee.

Members also raised the lack of cooperation by government and pubic bodies with the commission and discussed ways in which this could be addressed. They asked for more information on how the Commission was administered. The Commission confirmed that it was aware of dealing with a complaint directed to the Office of the Speaker.

The Chief Executive Officer briefed the Committee on highlights of the Strategic Plan and Budget, noting the vision and mission of the Commission, its organogram and challenges. He drew attention to the budget constraints, the challenges posed by the fact that there were only five commissioners instead of eleven, the Commission's inability to pay some staff, problems of corporate governance and information technology, the lack of strategic partnerships that would assist in boosting resources, and in high staff turnover occasioned by uncompetitive salaries. The major problem lay in trying to work with legislation that was not fully operational nor suited to the needs of the commission...

Minutes:

Mr Jody Kollapen, the chairperson of the SAHRC stated that the purpose of the meeting was that the Committee should be briefed on the current and planned activities of the SAHRC and the implications of these for Parliament. He noted that documents on the strategic plan and were made available to the Committee, but he would rather focus in his presentation on the work of the Commission, which had to do with ensuring equality, non discrimination and eradication of poverty.

The SAHRC, in filling its role as watchdog, should be fearless and independent, but not so much so that it operated in isolation, since the Commission's effectiveness came from the various levels of support, some of which still needed improvement, that it had from government, cabinet and parliament. The SAHRC had been working with the European Union (EU) and although there was an ongoing dispute, it was mainly centered on the highly technical and selective interpretation of the agreement. There were some outstanding important matters, namely the need to appoint and information officer, the non ratification of the International Covenant on the Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act (Act).

Prof Karthy Govender raised the issue of the need to revisit the Act, in particular the highlighting the uncertainty that plagued the Act, because it was never amended to be in line with the final Constitution. In order that the SAHRC could operate, it had to manoeuvre around and even ignore some provisions of the Act as it was currently written. The SAHRC had made several appeals to cure this, and this was draft legislation in place. He pleaded again that the amendments be dealt with speedily. Prof Govender also noted that the Commission had five instead of eleven commissioners at present...

Ms D Smuts (DA) remarked that there were some issues that were urgent and should be dealt with promptly. The most, she suggested were the vacancies on the Commission and the amendments to the Act. She asked why five vacancies were being advertised when it was clear that there should be eleven commissioners...

Mr Kollapen agreed that the issue of vacancies was very important. The SAHRC had received a letter from a client in the Western Cape, who pointed out that the Commission was illegally constituted since it had five, instead of eleven commissioners. This meant that people using the services of the Commission were of the issues, which made this a real rather than an academic challenge...

Presentation by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

He informed the Committee that he was not going to speak on all the challenges. However, he wished to draw attention to the budget constraints and the additional challenges posed by the fact that there were only five commissioners instead of eleven. Some of the staff of the Commission had approached the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) due to delays in payments. Despite this the Commission could still not afford to pay all the staff and there was tension between those staff who had been paid and the rest who were still waiting their pay. He also pointed out that there were challenges relating to corporate governance, information and technology. Internally, the Commission faced challenges in lack of strategic partnerships, meaning that they were working with very limited resources. There was also a problem with high staff turnover, due to the fact that the Commission could not offer competitive remuneration. However, the biggest embarrassment was that after 14 years the Commission was still trying to work with two pieces of legislation that were not fully operational and which could not be used properly.

Discussion followed...

Adv S Holomisa (ANC committee member) thanked the Commission for its clear explanations. He was looking forward to receiving the full report in September. He, however, said that he had not received a clear indication of the reasons for some of the challenges. For instance, why were there only five commissioners and why the President (of the country) had not initially appoint all eleven. He also asked to what extent the work of the Commission was being hampered by the fact that it had only five commissioners. He also asked which department was responsible for the regulations and whether the commission had been given any reason why these had not yet been enacted...

The meeting was adjourned.

* A discussion followed, but the minutes are quiet as to the way forward,

* The 'Parliamentary Monitoring Group' is a private concern that monitors the meetings of Parliament.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC – August 2009

06 August 2009

Adv NA Ramathlodi, MP

Chairperson

Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Adv Ramathlodi

TROUBLE-MAKER FOR THE GOOD

On 18 July 2009, the first 'Mandela Day' was held to celebrate the contributions of former President Mandela and others (including Mr Walter Sisulu, the father of the current Speaker of Parliament). It was asked that we spend 67 minutes on that day to improve the life of another person, because Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Madiba) spend 67 years of his life fighting to improve the lives of South Africans.

It is interesting that Rolihlahla means 'trouble-maker' - I am certain that the best way to 'repay' Madiba (and I am sure that he will approve) is for South Africans (and the world) to be 'trouble-makers' for justice, truth, freedom and democracy. After all, he was the greatest 'trouble-maker for the good' [1] of the 20th century.

I wish to raise three issues;

1. the unfair, illegal and unconstitutional dismissal of two employees of the Parliament of

the Republic of South Africa, who stood in the 2006 Local Government elections,

2. the illegally constituted South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and

3. an amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act ( Act 54, 1994).

ISSUE 1 – VIOLATION OF POLITICAL RIGHTS

A colleague and I were fired by Parliament (RSA), when we stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government Elections. I referred the unconstitutionality of the policy to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). It pronounced on 20 April 2007 that there was a 'prima facie' case, but further investigation was necessary. Since then they have been non-committal to execute their constitutional mandate 'without fear, favour or prejudice'. This matter is currently before the Public Protector, so I will not elaborate on the matter here. This should be raised with them when they table their annual report in Parliament [2].

ISSUE 2 – ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

The SAHRC is illegally constituted (see attachments for details). I wrote numerous letters to the 'powers that be', but their responses were below par. Some did not even bother to respond, like Mr Sisulu, the Speaker of the National Assembly. The chairperson of the SAHRC indicated on 22 May 2009 that he would discuss the 'illegally constituted SAHRC' with the Speaker – two months later and no feedback, yet! [3]

ISSUE 3 – SAHRC AMENDMENT BILL

The SAHRC is supposed to protect, support and strengthen our constitutional democracy by promoting and protecting fundamental human rights. It has a strong legislative framework, i.e. the Constitution (Act 108, 1996) [4] and the Human Rights Commission Act (Act 54, 1994). It is however clear the SAHRC does not have the political will and mechanisms to execute its constitutional mandate. I wish to propose an amendment [5] to the HRC Act to provide the necessary mechanism and teeth to beef up the functioning of the SAHRC (see attachment).

In conclusion, I wish to remind you that when you and your colleagues were sworn in as Members of Parliament, you swore or affirmed allegiance to the Constitution – you promised to put South Africa first. As such, we, the People of South Africa, put our faith in you, 'as freely elected representatives' [6] to 'build an effective People's Parliament, [as per the Freedom Charter,] that is responsive to the needs of the People...' [7].

The question can be asked, why do I pursue the above matters, when it is clear that the 'powers that be' are not interested. The answer: I am a 'trouble-maker for the good' and even if it takes 67 years, history will prove me right [8].

I, as a proud and patriotic South African would appreciate it if the Portfolio Committee can pursue the above-mentioned issues [9], because we need strong institutions (especially Parliament and the SAHRC) to strengthen our fragile constitutional democracy - a democracy for which many 'trouble-makers' gave their freedom; even their lives.

Enclosed, please find the following;

5. Letter: G Campher to Speaker Sisulu- 07 May 2009

(a) Letter: G Campher to Public Protector (no annexure)- 23 Apr 2009

(b) Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (SAHRC)- 29 Apr 2009

(c) Legal Opinion

6. Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (SAHRC)- 29 Apr 2009

(a) G Campher to Speaker Mahlangu-Nkabinde- 20 Jan 2009

(i) Interim Constitution

(ii) HRC Act

(iii) Interpretation Act

(b) Letter: Deputy Speaker to G Campher- 11 Feb 2009

(c) Letter: Speaker's Office to G Campher- 17 Mar 2009

7. SAHRC to G Campher- 22 May 2009

8. SAHRC Amendment Bill

If you need any further information, please do no hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER [M.Phil (Ethics)]

[* Adv Ramathlodi, MP did not respond to this letter.]

c.c.

Members: Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development

Mr JG Zuma: President of the Republic of South Africa

Mr M Sisulu, MP: Speaker – National Assembly (Parliament-RSA)

Mr J Kollapen: Chairperson – SAHRC

Adv L Mushwana: Public Protector

Prof K Asmal: Former chairperson of Parliament's Ad Hoc Committee on 'Ch. 9 Bodies'

Mr NR Mandela: Former President of the Republic of South Africa

NOTES:

1. Winston Churchill once said: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (people) to do nothing."

2. In fact, they should be summoned to Parliament to explain their disgraceful and unethical behaviour.

3. It is clear that the elected official (Mr Sisulu) and the appointed official (Mr Kollapen) DO NOT KNOW that they are ultimately accountable to the People of South Africa, which include Gabriel Campher.

4. Including the repealed Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993), because certain sections are still in force.

5. One cannot legislate for political will (moral integrity), but one can legislate for mechanisms to improve the work of the Commission.

6. From the mission of Parliament (RSA).

7. From the vision of Parliament (RSA).

8. Mark Twain once said: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

9. The first issue is being investigated by the Public Protector.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: Letter from Mr Kollapen

From: "Mamosadi Moletsane" <MMoletsane@sahrc.org.za>

To: G Campher

Date: Fri, August 14, 2009 2:25 pm

Dear Mr Campher

Enclosed find a letter from Mr Jody Kollapen for your perusal.

<<Mr Campher.pdf>>

Regards,

Sadi

Ms Sadi Moletsane

Office of the Chairperson (SAHRC)

Private Bag X2700, Houghton, 2041

Tel: +27 11 484 8300, X 2115

Fax: +27 11 642 7057

Website: http://www.sahrc.org.za

ATTACHMENT:

SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Private Bag X2700

Houghton

2041

Telephone: (011) 484 8300

Facsimile: (011) 484 7149

Website: http://www.sahrc.org.za

Our Ref: WC/26/456-bs

13 August 2009

Mr Gabriel Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

RE: ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

I am writing to give you an update on the above-mentioned matter, subsequent to the letter you received from my office on the 22nd May 2009.

Kindly be informed that the South African Human Rights Commission met with the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the 8th July 2009. Your letter, which formed part of the agenda for the meeting was tabled and discussed with the Committee. The matter is now with the Committee and hope the necessary measures will be taken to address it.

I trust that you will find the above in order.

Yours sincerely

(signed)

for Jody Kollapen

Chairperson

The South African Human Rights Commission

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cape Times *

25 August 2009

'Opposition up for scrap on shortlist for the HRC'

by Political Bureau

Swords are likely to cross in Parliament's justice portfolio committee today as opposition parties take on an ANC-dominated shortlist of nominees for the Human Rights Commission (HRC).

This is after the African National Congress (ANC) introduced its own list of preferred commissioners, three months after the deadline for public nominations to fill soon-to-be vacant commissioners' chairs. But this has angered the opposition which has vowed to fight the ANC's attempt to fill the body with "redundant cadres".

The committee is now under pressure to push through the process of interviewing shortlisted candidates; otherwise the HRC will be left with one full-time commissioner and four vacancies by the end of next month. This technically constitutes a breach of its own enabling legislation.

Democratic Alliance (DA) shadow justice minister Dene Smuts said today's meeting could see fierce contestation if the ANC did not "apply their minds" to the calibre of candidates they proposed. Last week opposition MPs told the ANC most of its candidates did not meet the requirements for the positions and it should reconsider its shortlist.

Among the candidates that the ruling party proposed last week are former City of Cape Town manager, Wallace Mgogi, who was axed when the DA took over the city, former ANC MPs Andre Gaum and Maxwell Moss and Paralympics athlete Ephraim Mohlakane. Congress of the People MP, Luzelle Adams, insisted that most of the ANC nominees did not have a "proper background in the human rights field".

Professor Pierre de Vos of UCT's ** Department of Public Law, said although the HRC's enabling legislation is silent on the qualifications the commissioners should have, the constitution required that "commissioners are independent people that can act without fear, favour or prejudice".

* 'The Cape Times' is a daily newspaper in Cape Town.

** University of Cape Town (UCT)

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - September 2009

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

COMMITTEE REPORTS

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the appointment of persons to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) in terms of section 193(5) of the Constitution, 1996, dated 17 September 2009.

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development having considered the appointment of persons to the South African Human Rights Commission reports as follows (the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP, Democratic Alliance (DA), and Congress of the People (COPE) abstaining):

1.1 The Committee has been tasked by the National Assembly with making recommendations on the names of persons to fill the vacancies that have arisen in the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). The terms of office of five of the commissioners, one of whom is appointed part-time, will expire at the end of September 2009.

1.2 Chapter 9 of the Constitution establishes the SAHRC as a State Institution Supporting Constitutional Democracy. It must promote respect for human rights and a culture of human rights; promote the protection, development and attainment of human rights; and monitor and assess the observance of human rights in South Africa.

1.3 In accordance with section 193 of the Constitution, member of the SAHRC must be men and women who are;

(a) South African citizens

(b) Fit and proper to hold the particular office;

(c) Comply with any other requirements prescribed by national legislation.

1.4 Advertisements calling for nominations were placed in both national and regional newspapers in May 2009. The closing date for these nominations was 8 May 2009. A number of nominations were received. The Committee then decided to reopen the nomination process. This is because the National Assembly may decide to nominate more than 5 Commissioners and may also decide to nominate part-time as well as full-time Commissioners. Further advertisements were placed in national and regional newspapers, with 4 September 2009 as the closing date.

1.5 A total of 217 nominations were received. The Committee deliberated and 32 nominees were shortlisted for interviews.

1.6 The interviews were held at Parliament from 14 to 17 September 2009. Two nominees withdrew, and three more were unavailable during the period set aside for the interviews. In total, 27 nominees were interviewed.

1.7 After deliberating, the Committee recommends that the National Assembly consider the following persons to fill the position of Commissioners on the SAHRC:

(a) Ms L Mokat (full-time)

(b) Adv BJ Malatji (full-time)

(c) Adv LM Mushwana (full-time)

(d) Adv LKB Mpumlwana (full-time)

(e) Ms J Love (part-time)

(f) Dr D Titus (part-time)

1.8 The Committee was impressed with the calibre of those it interviewed. It would have liked to have recommended the appointment of more Commissioners, but was unable to do so, because of funding constraints on the part of the SAHRC. It intends to engage with government for additional funds to appoint more Commissioners.

1.9 The Committee would like to make greater use of the expertise that is available in the field of human rights. It agreed to establish a panel of human rights experts from those shortlisted to advise the Committee.

1.10 The Committee wishes to thank all those nominated and their nominees for putting their names forward. It is especially appreciative of those who made themselves available for the interviews.

Report to be considered.

[* The Committee went through a process (adverts, interviews) to identify people that are fit to be appointed as Commissioners on the SAHRC. The names were then tabled in the National Assembly for approval, where after it would be send to the President of the Republic of South Africa for appointment.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - October 2009

06 October 2009

Mr JG Zuma

President of the RSA

Tuynhuis

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sir

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

The National Assembly recently recommended six people to you for appointment as Commissioners to the South Africa Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) for the next seven years. This will bring the SAHRC to seven Commissioners, as one was already appointed in January 2009. I wish to request that t you do not constitute a seven member SAHRC, because it will constitute a criminal offence, in terms of the Human Rights Act, 1994 (Act 54 of 1994).

Section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993) stated "there shall be a Human Rights Commission, which shall consist of a chairperson and 10 members". Act 200 is repealed, but section 115 thereof is revived by section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act, which states; "The members of the Commission referred to in section 1115(1) of the Constitution...". In terms of section 12 of the interpretation Act, when a current law refers to a repealed law, that repealed law or the section referred to is revived or re-enacted. Section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution is thus still in force, even though the law has been repealed!

Eleven Commissioners is a LEGAL requirement for a legally constituted SAHRC and if you constitute a seven member SAHRC, then it will be a criminal offence, in terms of section 18(h) of Act 54 of 1994. It states; "a person who fails to afford the Commission the necessary assistance referred in section 4(3) or 7(2), shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months".

Section 4(3) states; "All organs of state shall afford the Commission such assistance as may be reasonably required for the protection of the independence, impartiality and dignity of the omission".

Section 7(2) states; "All organs of state shall afford the Commission such assistance as may be reasonably required for the effective exercising of its powers and performance of its duties and functions".

It is clear that with an incomplete complement of Commissioners, the SAHRC will not be able to perform its duties and functions or exercise its power effectively and legally and that its dignity and competence will be compromised. It is thus the legal duty of you, as a South African citizen, but more so as President of the Republic to provide the 'necessary' assistance to the SAHRC and appoint the legally required number of Commissioners, so that the SAHRC can function optimally and legally!

In conclusion, I urge you to refer this matter back to the National Assembly, which is fully aware of the legal implications, as illustrated by the attached correspondence.

Enclosed, please find;

1. Letter: G Campher to Adv Ramathlodi (06 Aug 2009)

2. Letter: G Campher to Mr Sisulu (07 May 2009)

3. Letter: G Campher to Mr Kollapen (29 Apr 2009)

(a) Letter: G Campher to Ms Mahlangu-Nkabinde (20 Jan 2009)

(b) Interim Constitution

(c) Human Rights Commission Act, 1994

(d) Interpretation Act, 1957

(e) Letter: Deputy Speaker to G Campher

(f) Letter: Speaker's Office to G Campher

4. Legal Opinion

5. Letter: SAHR to G Campher (13 Aug 2009)

6. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher (22 May 2009)

If you need any further information, please contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* The President did not respond to the letter.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

MUSHWANA NEW SAHRC CHAIRPERSON

South African Press Association (SAPA) - 22 Oct 2009

Johannesburg – Former Public Protector, Lawrence Mushwana was on Thursday named as the new chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission. He succeeds Jody Kollapen, who left at the end of September.

Mushwana will take office on 2nd of November.

Mushwana hails from Limpopo Province and like many of the country's top legal minds, started off as a court interpreter before becoming a magistrate, according to a biography on the website of his previous employer where he worked since 2002.

He was detained twice during apartheid.

He has chaired budget and code of ethics committees in Parliament and has been a commissioner of the Judicial Service Commission. Mushwana is fluent in seven languages and conversant in another three.

Famous cases he dealt with at the Protector's Office include 'Oilgate' and a complaint over the way President Jacob Zuma was being treated by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP). He told the Mail & Guardian that in the Zuma complaint, where he decided the NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka was treating Zuma unfairly in saying there was a prima facie case against him, but not charging him, was one of the most difficult he had to deal with.

"Here I had my own minister who is supposed to protect me, coming out in the media attacking me," he told the newspaper after then Justice Minister, Penuell Maduna called his report 'junk'.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - November 2009

06 November 2009

Mr MV Sisulu, MP

Speaker - National Assembly

Parliament (RSA)

P O Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Speaker

CRIMINAL OFFENCE: ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

I hope that this letter finds you in good health, as opposed to the poor health of South Africa's democracy. I wish to express my disappointment in Parliament and the President for undermining our democracy by castrating the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the most important State Institution Supporting Constitutional Democracy, after Parliament. The SAHRC and other 'Chapter Nine Bodies' are the watchdogs for Parliament to ensure that constitutional democracy thrives. By undermining the SAHRC, Parliament is effectively undermining itself.

You are fully aware [1] that the current SAHRC is illegally constituted [2]. It means that the election of Adv Mushwana, as chairperson of the Commission, is null and void [3]. This also applies to all future activities of the Commission [4]. Those disadvantaged will be the marginalised, who approach the SAHRC daily to protect and enforce their human rights. If this situation continues real, then Parliament and the SAHRC would have failed the Constitution and the People of South Africa, again.

I would therefore urge you, as the political authority of the National Assembly, which has to recommend persons to the President for appointment as human rights Commissioners, to urgently refer this matter back to the portfolio committee. The instruction to the committee should be to recommend five more persons [5] for appointment as Commissioners – excluding Adv LKB Mpumlwana, who seemingly is not a 'fit and proper' person - a constitutional requirement [6]. This scandal could have been averted, if the Parliamentary Service did its work by ensuring that applicants met the stipulated requirements [7].

Patriotic Action

If the SAHRC is not constituted legally by Friday, 20 November 2009, when Parliament rises, then I, as a patriot South African citizen [8], will have no choice, but to lay criminal charges [9], against the following persons;

1. Mr MV Sisulu, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly)

-Offence: not instructing the portfolio committee to remain within the legal parameters by recommending ten [10] persons for appointment to the SAHRC.

-Offence: with criminal intent, requested the President to appoint an illegal SAHRC.

2. Members of the PC on Justice, that attended the meeting of 08 July 2009 [11]

-Offence: at this meeting the committee members deliberately broke the law by not recommending the legally required number of Commissioners. The members did not execute their legal duty to capacitate the SAHRC, so that it can exercise its powers and perform its duties, effectively.

3. Mr JG Zuma (President of the Republic of South Africa)

-Offence: deliberately broke the law by undermining the SAHRC and appointing an illegal SAHRC.

4. Mr ZA Dingani (Secretary to Parliament) & Adv Vanaara (Parliament's Legal Adviser)

-Offence: dereliction of duty - they did not provide proper assistance and advice to Parliament. This deliberate inaction undermined the legality, independence and integrity of the SAHRC.

Enclosed, please find the following;

9. Letter: G Campher to Pres Zuma (RSA) - 06 October 2009

10. Newspaper Article : News 24 - 22 October 2009

11. Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (PC - Justice) - 06 August 2009

12. Report to National Assembly : PC –Justice - 17 September 2009

13. Letter: G Campher to Chairperson (SAHRC) \- 29 Apr 2009

14. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher - 22 May 2009

15. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher - 13 August 2009

16. Letter: G Campher to Speaker (Parliament-RSA) - 07 May 2009

17. Letter: G Campher to Ms Sisulu (Min. of Defence) [12] - 06 August 2009

18. Minutes: PC-Justice - 08 July 2009

19. Legal Opinion : State law Advisers - 18 December 2008

Mr Speaker, this is one of those fleeting and rare moments in our mortal lives where one can right a wrong. As an elected official, you have been given the power by the People, use it boldly...to their benefit.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

[* The Speaker did not respond to the letter.]

c.c. –

1. Members of the PC on Justice and Constitutional Development

2. Mr JG Zuma (President of the Republic of South Africa)

3. Mr ZA Dingani (Secretary to Parliament)

4. Adv Vanaara (Parliament's Legal Adviser)

5. SAHRC Commissioners

NOTES:

1. Please see the attachments for details.

2. Only six persons were nominated – see the attachment no.4 (Report of the portfolio committee to the National Assembly)

3. Adv Mushwana stated as chairperson of the SAHRC on 02 November 2009 – see the attached News24.com article.

4. The previous SAHRC was also illegally constituted. Yes, all its activities, findings and reports have no legal standing.

5. These people could be identified from the 32 nominees that were shortlisted, because in point 1.4 of the committee's report to the Assembly, it allowed for the appointment of more than five Commissioners.

6. See point 1.3 of the committee's report to the Assembly (attachment No.4).

7. The committee attributed to this chaos by accepting applications, without nomination letters, which was a requirement, per the advertisement.

8. It is quite clear that the elected and appointed officials that have "to build an effective People's Parliament..." do not have the ethical leadership qualities to defend our Constitution and democracy. It is then left to vigilant and patriot citizens to defend our hard fought democracy.

9. See the letter, addressed to Pres Zuma (06 Oct 2009) for the legal argument.

10. Ms Pregs Govender, the eleventh Commissioner, was appointed in January 2009.

11. At this meeting the SAHRC Commissioners clearly stated that the Commission was struggling to execute its mandate, because it was not appropriately constituted – see the attached minutes of the portfolio committee, dated 08 July 2009.

12. I have included this letter to indicate that the castration of the SAHRC is a betrayal of all those heroes that fought for this rights-based constitutional democracy. This democracy has to serve the millions of poor and marginalised people, not the privileged few.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - December 2009

PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Telephone: +27 21 403 2240

Facsimile: +27 21 403 2604

7 December 2009

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

RE: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE SAHRC

I refer to your letter dated 6 November 2009.

I also refer to the letter from Mr P Lebeko, Acting Manager, Office of the Speaker, dated 17 March 2009, which addressed the issue of the applicability of section 115 of the 1993 Interim Constitution. I disagree with your interpretation of the relevant law not withstanding the legal opinion from the office of the Chief State Law Advisor you submitted as authority.

I am concerned about your use of a legal opinion from the Office of the Chief State Law advisor for personal purposes. The opinion clearly states it was I your capacity as Coordinator: Standing Committee on Community Development, Western Cape Provincial Parliament. However, you write to the Speaker of the National Assembly in your personal capacity. Could you please clarify in whose interests you are acting?

Yours sincerely

(signed)

Mr ZA Dingani

Secretary to Parliament

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 15

**Illegal SAHRC - January 2010**

' _A person is not defined by his power, authority or money, but what he does with it._ ' Unknown

14 January 2010

Mr ZA Dingani

Secretary to Parliament (RSA)

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Dear Mr Secretary

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

Thank you for your letter, dated 7 December 2009, '2010' is finally here – the year for which we have been waiting! It promises to be a great year for South Africa as a football-mad country and as a nation. May you have a happy and prosperous new year.

Legal Opinion

I wish to state for the record that I approached a senior state law advisor [1] for advice in the national interest. The response of this person surpassed my expectation, because I did not expect a formal legal opinion. As you know [2], I will never abuse scarce public resources for personal gain. I wish to add that I have the greatest respect for Mr Peter Lebeko – as a friend, former colleague and senior and very experienced Parliamentary Official – but in this matter, I believe, he is wrong [3]'.

Valid and Substantive Question

The question [4] with which you ended your letter is legally valid in that it questions the legal standing of the initiator. More importantly the question is substantive, because it questions the motive of the initiator – 'whose interest' [5] will be served or what will be the benefit [6]?

I found myself in a moral dilemma, when I realized that the SAHRC was illegally constituted. On the one hand the truth would tarnish the image of the country, Parliament, the Presidency and the SAHRC. It would make a mockery of South African leadership and the anti-Apartheid struggle for human rights. It would also open the SAHRC to legal claims on the basis of its technically illegal findings. On the other hand, the SAHRC was investigating my case against National Parliament and if I blew the whistle, the investigation, which is already in its FIFTH year, would be prolonged for many more frustrating years. I decided to reveal the truth to the SAHRC, Parliament and the President, even though Shamiel Abbas' family and mine would be disadvantaged in the short term, but in the long term, all South Africans would suffer. If I did not sound the alarm, I would have taken value, instead of adding value to the lives [7] of South Africans.

Wilderness

Leadership entails the following steps: (a) preparation, (b) test, (c) experience and (d) evaluation. Many of South Africa's leaders (including yourself) were in the wilderness (prison, exile, house arrest, etc.) to prepare them for leadership in the post-Apartheid era. They have been broken of their 'self-sufficiency', they have gained perspective and they have grown into their vocation. All these leaders have been evaluated and it is sad, but most of them did not make the grade. They have used the power that the people gave them for themselves and not to the benefit of the People [8].

In 2008/09 you were placed in the wilderness by God. You were suspended – with full pay. (You probably said: "Thank God!") You were represented at the disciplinary hearing by an expensive attorney, who was paid by Parliament! This gave you the freedom to concentrate on the non-financial matters of your suspension [9]. You experienced a sense of disgust, indignity, humiliation and maybe anger and the desire for revenge. Situations like these force one to do self-reflection and even cry for help to God, the gods or 'something out there'. One then feels that one is not in control, but have merely been keeping things under control at work and at home. Before I was dismissed, I also thought that I was in control. I merely had things under control, because God was and is in control.

I believe your question should be changed to; "Could you please clarify on whose behalf you are acting?" The answer would be Yahweh; the God of Abraham and Moses; the God that freed the People of Israel form slavery and the God that sent Jesus Christ to die for our sins on the cross. He is a forgiving God, but also a wrathful God. I will not elaborate on the latter. With regard to the former, God forgave me for my sins and therefore I have forgiven you for your sins against Shamiel Abbas, me and our families.

You would have noticed that my writing is vastly different from my first letter, dated 7 March 2006, when I pleaded with you to withdraw the dismissal letter. Then I was talking about 'me'; now I am talking about 'Him'. If we do not serve other people, like He served us, then our lives will not be worth living. You will agree with me that I have done everything humanly [10] possible to bring justice for Mr Shamiel Abbas, Ms Patisa Sipamla [11] and myself. I have accepted that I am merely human, weak and temporal and a small cog in the grand plan. As such, I have requested divine intervention in this matter.

God has given you many things (wealth, respect, status, family, etc.), now it is your turn [12] to give to God. He wants you to;

(a) Make the employment of Ms Patisa Sipamla meaningful,

(b) Address the shortcomings of the SAHRC, and

(c) Do justice to Merrs Shamiel Abbas and Gabriel Campher

Patisa Sipamla

Ms Sipamla, an employee of Parliament, stood as a candidate for COPE in the 2009 general elections. She was harassed by management to withdraw her candidacy or face 'resignation' (dismissal), as per a workplace policy. After my intervention, the policy was suspended and she stood in the elections. She was unsuccessful, but now Parliament does not want to allocate a chairperson to work with her, as a Secretary to Chairperson. She receives her salary, but does not do any (meaningful) work. This is severe punishment for any respectful human being!

SAHRC

The SAHRC is a very important Constitutional body. There should be 11 Commissioners, which should be nominated by Parliament. As the Secretary to Parliament you should advise the Speaker and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Review to implement the laws of this country to the letter. Ironically, these laws were made by Parliament! Is Parliament above the law and the Constitution?

Merrs Shamiel Abbas and Gabriel Campher

These two gentlemen were unfairly, illegally and unconstitutionally dismissed, when they stood as candidates in the 2006 elections. Parliament made a mistake and you acknowledged it when you informed the SAHRC that Parliament changed the unconstitutional workplace policy. As the Secretary to Parliament – do what is right, i.e. merely apply the vision, mission and values of Parliament. Be a leader and lead!

God has given you the power to make '2010' a great year for South Africa – use it [13]!

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

c.c. – Adv. Thulisile Madonsela (The Public Protector)

* Mr ZA Dingani did not respond to this letter.

NOTES:

1. I know this person for more than a decade from my days at National Parliament.

2. I believe that you know me by now from the content and perspective of the many letters that crossed your table. After all we have been 'pen pals' for years. You will be glad to know that this will be the last letter to you on this saga.

3. In the July 2000 meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Justice, it was agreed to bring the SAHRC's legal framework in line with the current practice of appointing less than the legally required 11 Commissioners.

4. 'Could you please clarify in whose interest you are acting?'

5. Private citizen vs Parliamentary official vs Provincial Parliament vs South Africa.

6. Are the criminal charges for; respect, self-enrichment, vengeance against certain individuals, to bring National Parliament into disrepute or to protect our constitutional democracy?

7. "A life lived for another is a life worth living" – Albert Einstein

8. John C. Maxwell said that the true leader wields power for one reason only – to serve. According to Pittacus: "The true measure of a man is what he does with power".

9. Abbas and I did not have this luxury when we were dismissed. In fact, Abbas' wife was pregnant when he lost his job. He lost his house and car. I found another job, because I, at least had a teaching qualification. My family was luckier, even though the salary was much lower. We were able to survive and to rebuild our lives – day-by-day.

10. This included numerous letters to Parliamentary officials, Presiding Officers, the President, MPs, SAHRC, Public Protector, SAPS and NGOs. I also had meetings with private lawyers, the SAHRC, SAPS and Prof Kader Asmal, MP. I have also requested MPs to make a motion in the National Assembly. One of the matters was also dealt with by the CCMA.

11. I raised her situation (see above) with COPE's provincial leadership and yourself.

12. "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing, would suffice to solve most of the world's problems" – Mahatma Gandhi

13. "There comes a special moment in everyone's life, a moment for which that person is born. That special opportunity, when he/she seizes it, it fulfils his/her mission – a mission for which he/she is uniquely qualified. In that moment, that person finds greatness. It is his/her finest hour." - Winston Churchill

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

14 January 2010

Adv. Thulisile Madonsela

Office of the Public Protector

Private Bag X677

Pretoria

0001

Dear Adv Madonsela

ILLEGAL ACTION – PARLIAMENT (RSA)

I wish to request an investigation, in terms of section 182(1)(a) of the Constitution and section 6(4)(a) of the Public Protector Act into the illegal and improper conduct of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. This matter has three aspects, which are clarified in the attachments.

1. Patisa Sipamla

Ms Sipamla, an employee of Parliament, stood as a candidate for COPE in the 2009 general elections. She was harassed to withdraw her candidacy or face 'resignation' (dismissal), as per a workplace policy. After my intervention, the policy was suspended and she stood in the elections. She was unsuccessful, but now Parliament does not want to allocate a chairperson to work with her, as a Secretary to Chairperson. She receives her salary, but does not do any (meaningful) work. This is severe punishment for any respectful human being! She exercised her constitutional right, in terms of section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution, but was punished, because she stood against the majority party in Parliament.

2. SAHRC

The SAHRC should have 11 Commissioners, in terms of the revived section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution – a repealed act. The Secretary should (properly) advise the Speaker and Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Review to implement the laws of this country to the letter.

3. Merrs Shamiel Abbas and Gabriel Campher

These two gentlemen were unfairly, illegally and unconstitutionally dismissed, when they stood as candidates in the 2006 elections. The Secretary to Parliament acknowledged this human right violation, but refuses to address this matter.

Enclosed, please find the following;

(a). Letter: G Campher to MV Sisulu – 06 Nov 2009

(b) Letter: ZA Dingani to G Campher – 07 Dec 2009

(c) Letter: G Campher to ZA Dingani – 14 Jan 2010

If you need any further information, please contact me.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - February 2010

Via E-mail:

\----Original Message----

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: 08 February 2010

To: Meambrey Mbatha

Subject: new complaint

Dear Ms Mbatha

I mailed a new complaint to the PP on 14 Jan 2010. I just want to establish if the PP received it.

Thanks

Gabriel Campher

[* This new complaint was about the 'illegally constituted SAHRC'.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>M. Mbatha>>>responded

From: Meambrey Mbatha <Office of the Public Protector>

To: Rachel Mokgadi ; Emma Majadibodu <Office of the Public Protector>

Cc: Amanda Snyman <Office of the Public Protector> ; Gabriel Campher

Date: 08 February 2010

Subject: New Complaint

Morning

Please see the e-mail below.

Regards

Meambrey

[* Ms Mbatha forwarded my e-mail to her colleagues, but no-one responded.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE

Provincial Inspectorate Western Cape

Enquiries:

Director J Solomons

Capt Philip

Our Reference: 23/2/3/1

Telephone: 021-467 8403

Date: 9 February 2010

Dear Mr G Campher

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE

1. Your statement obtained on Thursday, 5 November 2009 and separate documents have reference.

2. The two concerns raised by yourself were submitted to the SAPS: Legal Services to provide a legal opinion in whether all elements of a crime exists to open criminal dockets.

2.1 With regards to the insufficient number of Commissioners appointed, the legal opinion is in essence as follows:

"...the complainant to follow a civil action other than a criminal action, to review the decision of the president if it is necessary to do so."

2.2 With regards to the Human Rights Commission Act, the legal opinion is in essence as follows:

"...the alleged violation of your rights in this case and the allegations that the Commission did not receive the necessary support from your employer and other responsible persons to finalise your investigation, is not a matter to be investigated by the South African Police Service. The Commission has the necessary statutory powers and functions to, in its own name, take action against persons suspected of having failed to give the necessary support to the Commission."

3. This matter is hereby regarded as finalized.

(signed)

Director J Solomons

PROVINCIAL HEAD: INSPECTORATE (W-CAPE)

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: ENQUIRIES ; MR G CAMPHER

From: "WC: Prov Comm PA"

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: Fri, February 26, 2010 10:10 am

Cc: Solomons Jan - Director"

Priority: Normal

Dear Campher

Your correspondence dated 2010-02-25 refers.

Kindly be advised that I have discussed your enquiry with Director Solomons. The Director will be contacting you in this regard.

Sincerely

Senior Superintendent Dalene Lock

Personal Assistant: Provincial Commissioner: South African Police

Service: Western Cape

Tel (021) 417-7388: Fax (021) 417-7389

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Subject: MR G CAMPHER

From: "WC: Prov Head Inspectorate"

To: Gabriel Campher

Date: Fri, February 26, 2010 1:17 pm

Cc: "WC: Prov Comm PA"

Priority: Normal

FOR ATTENTION: MR G CAMPHER

Find attached document for your attention.

Solomons Jan (Director)

PROVINCIAL HEAD: INSPECTORATE

TEL: (021) 467-8403

FAX: (021) 467-8496

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 16

**Illegal SAHRC - February 2011**

'Values are not taught, they are caught.

(Role models should live values, not tell people what to do.)'

Anonymous

15 February 2011

Adv Thuli Madonsela

The Public Protector

Private Bag X677

Pretoria

0001

Dear Adv Madonsela

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

In September 2009, the National Assembly recommended six persons to President Zuma for appointment as commissioners to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) for the next seven years. This brought the SAHRC to seven Commissioners, as one was already appointed in January 2009. I am of the opinion (which is supported by a professional legal opinion \- annexure A) that the SAHRC is currently illegally structured, in terms of the Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993), which speaks to its establishment. I am of the view that the President and Parliament acted illegally when they established the current SAHRC.

Section 115(1) of the Interim Constitution stated 'there shall be a Human Rights Commission, which shall consist of a chairperson and 10 members'. The Interim Constitution is repealed, but section 115 thereof is revived by section 3(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act (Act 54, 1994), which states; 'The members of the Commission referred to in section 115(1) of the Constitution ...'. In terms of section 12 of the Interpretation Act, when a current law refers to a repealed law, that repealed law or the section referred to is revived or re-enacted and comes into force!

The current situation is that eleven Commissioners is a LEGAL requirement for a legally constituted SAHRC. The first SAHRC (1995-2002) consisted of 11 commissioners. A joint committee of Parliament recommended 11 persons and President Mandela appointed them. The next SAHRC (2002-2009) was rationalised by President Mbeki (annexure B), because of financial constraints. He appointed six persons only, even though Parliament recommended eleven. In 2009 President Zuma and Parliament bought the 'rationalisation argument' and threw the statutes out of the window. Pres Zuma duly appointed the six persons recommended by Parliament as commissioners.

The SAHRC, with its incomplete complement of commissioners, is unable to perform its duties and functions or exercise its power effectively and legally. The SAHRC reported this to Parliament in July 2009 (annexure C). The sad and unethical part is that the multi-party Portfolio Committee sympathised with the SAHRC, but the lawmakers (yes, the people that made the law), did not defend the letter and spirit of the law! The SAHRC chairperson stated in the meeting that the matter (illegal SAHRC) was raised by "a client in the Western Cape" and that the public is aware of this situation – referring to my April 2009 letter (annexure D).

What is even sadder is that the leadership of Parliament was fully aware of the illegally constituted SAHRC - the Speaker (Annexure E), Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee (annexure F) and the Deputy Speaker (Annexure D). Herewith a full list of role-players [1] with which this matter was directly and/or indirectly raised, but to no avail.

The SAHRC is illegal for another reason. In terms of the Interim Constitution, a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, not a Portfolio Committee of the National Assembly must recommend persons to the President for appointment.

The SAHRC chairperson indicated to me in August 2009 (annexure G) that he raised the matter with the parliamentary Justice Committee and that he hoped (!) that the matter would be addressed. I believed that he should have raised it formally with the Presiding Officers of Parliament, as per the letter from his office in May 2009 (annexure H). The Justice Committee also raised the insufficient number of commissioners in its report to the National Assembly in September 2009 (annexure I) and indicated that it would engage (!) government on the matter.

I firmly believe that Parliament and the SAHRC should have done more to rectify this unacceptable situation. In fact the President should have provided the ethical leadership on this matter. The executive should provide the necessary funding to appoint four more commissioners or request Parliament to amend the relevant laws to make the current SAHRC legal.

Madame, I wish to urge your office to engage the Presidency and Parliament so that they can show the necessary respect and accountability to the People of South Africa. After all the post –Apartheid South Africa was founded on certain values, like "the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law..." [2].

I would appreciate your assistance in this regard.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

GABRIEL CAMPHER

NOTES:

1. President Zuma, SAHRC Chairperson, Speaker Sisulu, Dep Speaker Mahlangu-Routledge, Chairperson of Justice Portfolio Committee, Individual MPs, Public Protector Mushwana, Former President Mandela, Prof Asmal- Chairperson of Ad Hoc Committee on Chapter 9 Constitutional Bodies.

2. Section 1(c), Constitution of the Republic of South Africa - Act 106, 1996

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC PROTECTOR

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

National Office

Private Bag X677

Pretoria

0001

Enquiries: Ms J Nkabinde

Date: 24 February 2011

Mr G Campher

Belhar

7493

Dear Mr Campher

ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED SAHRC

Receipt of your letter of 15 February 2011 is hereby acknowledged with thanks

The matter will be assessed and one of my investigators will contact you in due course.

Best wishes

(signed)

ADV. T MADONSELA

Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 17

Illegal SAHRC - February 2012

18 February 2012

The Public Protector

Private Bag X677

Pretoria

0001

Dear Advocate Madonsela

PRORESS REPORT

I hereby formally request a progress report on a complaint that I registered one year ago. The enclosed letter dated, 24 February 2011 acknowledged receipt, but thereafter I heard nothing.

I phoned many times, even sent a registered letter, but no progress report.

The case number is: 7-2-35757-11.

Thanking you in advance.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

G CAMPHER

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - March 2012

19 March 2012

The Public Protector

Private Bag X677

Pretoria

0001

Dear Advocate Madonsela

PRORESS REPORT – FORMAL REQUEST #2

I hereby once again formally request a progress report on a complaint that I registered more than a year ago. I phoned many times, even sent a registered letter, but no progress report.

The case number is: 7-2-35757-11.

Enclosed please find the following;

(a) Letter acknowledging receipt (dated, 24 February 2011)

(b) Letter requesting report (dated 18 February 2012)

Thanking you in advance.

Yours faithfully

(signed)

G CAMPHER

c.c.

\- South African Human Rights Commission

\- The Mail & Guardian (South African newspaper. No response was received.)

\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal SAHRC - September 2012

'Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name; You are Mine.'

God (Isaiah 43:1)

18 September 2012

Adv WR van Rensburg

Provincial Representative: W-Cape

Office of the Public Protector

53 Wale Street

Cape Town

8000

Dear Sir

NO FEEDBACK : CASE NO.- 7/2/35757/11

Following our conversation on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 at your offices and your advice to submit a letter of complaint about my various failed attempts to get feedback from Pretoria about my case, herewith the letter.

I lodged a complaint with head office on 15 February 2011 and received an acknowledgement letter, dated 24 February 2012. In June and July 2011, I phoned for an update, but no update was received, except a case number. In July or August 2011, I spoke to Adv Neels van der Merwe, the case investigator. He stated that he was awaiting for feedback from Parliament (RSA), the respondent and that the matter would be finalized soon.

This year, I wrote letters in April, May and June, but received no response, not even an acknowledgement. I then approached the Western Cape regional office on 11 July 2012 to see if you could get a response from Pretoria.

I know that the Office of the Public Protector is underfunded and understaffed, whilst the workload increases by the day. Currently each investigator has to deal with 200-300 cases per month. Ironically, the case in question deals with the deliberate undermining of another Chapter Nine institution by the every institution (Parliament) that has to support this body to execute its constitutional mandate.

I accept that the case might not be finalized, because of workload and staffing and the fact that Parliament (I know) will drag its feet to comply with requests for information or feedback. Therefore, I would appreciate you assistance to secure an update.

Thank you

Yours faithfully

(signed)

G CAMPHER

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 18

Illegal SAHRC - 2013

'You are bad, if you are only good for yourself.'

Haitian proverb

Wednesday, 09 January 2013

I visited the Provincial Office (Cape Town) in person to find out the reason why there is no feedback on this letter.

The response from the officials was:

'They must check whether the registry received the letter and will then inform me. The Provincial Representative would only return on 15 January 2013 from leave.'

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail: Office of Public Protector (Western Cape)

Date: Monday, 21 January 2013

From: Ruthven Janse van Rensburg<<RuthvenJ@pprotect.org>>

To: Lesedi Monareng lesediM@pprotect.org

Cc: Linda Molelekoa <lindam@pprotect.org>; <Gabriel Campher>;

Dear Mrs Sekele

Senior Manager: Intake and Customer Service

I annex a customer complaint regarding a case dealt with by the Pretoria Office. Could you please take the matter further? I have copied the complainant, Mr Campher, into this e-mail.

Kind regards

Ruthven van Rensburg

Provincial Representative: Western Cape Office of the Public Protector

51 Wale St & Breë St

CAPE TOWN

Tel: 021 423 8644

Fax: 021 423 8708

[* An attachment to this letter was the letter dated, 18 September 2012, that I wrote to Adv Van Rensburg. He wrote on the attached letter: "I only received the letter in the second week of Jan 2013 at reception."]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Lesedi Monareng <Office of the Public Protector>

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:45:45 +0200

To: Gabriel Campher

Cc: Linda Molelekoa ; Neels van der Merwe <Office of the Public Protector>

Subject: ref 7/2-35757/11

Dear Mr Gabriel

Firstly, please accept our sincere apology for the failure to communicate with you regarding the matter you have brought to the attention of the Public Protector. We are very concerned about this and are in the process of establishing what the status of the case is. Adv Van der Merwe will furnish us with a report urgently so that we can see what the cause of the delay is and a decision will then be made on how we can bring the case to finality. I will contact you again tomorrow by close of business with a progress report.

Thank you for your patience

Lesedi Sekele (Ms)

Senior Manager:

Intake, Assessment &Customer Service (IACS)

Tel 012 366 7041

Fax 012 362 3473

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

From: Gabriel Campher

Sent: 21 January 2013 06:50 PM

To: Lesedi Monareng

Subject: Re: ref 7/2-35757/11

Dear Ms Sekele

Thank you for the feedback.

Regards

Mr G Campher

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

RE: Reference No. 7/2-35757/11

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:32 PM

From: "Lesedi Monareng" <<Office of the Public Protector>

To: "Gabriel Campher"

Cc: "Linda Molelekoa" <lindam@pprotect.org>

Dear Mr Campher

I sent an enquiry to Adv Van der Merwe but I was informed this morning that he is on sick leave. I will take up the matter with him when he returns to the office.

Thank you

Lesedi Sekele (Ms)

Senior Manager:

Intake, Assessment &Customer Service (IACS)

Tel 012 366 7041

Fax 012 362 3473

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Via E-mail:

Date: Wednesday, 06 March 2013

Dear Ms Monareng (Office of the Public Protector)

[For attention of: Ms Lesedi Sekele; Senior Manager: Intake, Assessment &Customer Service]

Thank you for the response, dated 22 January 2013, (that is six weeks, a day ago) stating that the matter was referred to the investigating officer (Adv Neels van der Merwe), however he was on sick leave – not the first time that I have heard this.

The aim of this e-mail is the same as the previous one: to establish what the status of my complaint is, a complaint initially lodged on 15 February 2011, i.e. more than two years ago!

This complaint deals, interestingly with the "Illegally constituted SAHRC", an institution, like the Public Protector established in terms of the constitution to 'support constitutional democracy'.

Today, Wednesday, 06 March 2013 is the 7th anniversary of my dismissal by National Parliament for my candidature, as an independent candidate in the 2006 Local government Elections. I remember that unjust day – Monday, 06 March 2013 - as if it is today. I took the matter to the CCMA, which found that it was a dismissal and not a resignation, as Parliament's workplace policy stated. I was however not reinstated, but received compensation – Parliament accepted the award.

When I applied for my pension, which was payable, 'if the employee is dismissed after ten serviceable years', as per the Rules of the Pension scheme. Parliament reverted to its original position; that I resigned. I requested the intervention of the Public Protector and after more than a year of back-and-forth, Parliament conceded.

I also took my illegal and unconstitutional dismissal to the SAHRC in September 2006, which only finalised the matter in May 2010! Yes, the Commission did not investigate the complaint with the necessary 'good faith and without fear, favour, bias or prejudice', as stipulated in the SAHRC Act. I hope that is not the case with the PP, in this case. The SAHRC eventually found that Parliament's workplace policy was unconstitutional, because every citizen has the right to stand for public office, as per section 19(3)(b) of the constitution – ironically a law that was passed in the very same Parliament, supposedly the beacon of democracy in a post-Apartheid South Africa.

I firmly believe that I was taken on this arduous journey by my Creator for a specific purpose, a purpose that is still unknown to me. In this journey (engagements) with National Parliament, I stumbled on the issue of the 'illegally constituted SAHRC'. I communicated this matter to the SAHRC, Presiding Officers and Members of Parliament and the Presidency, but no one seems to care – they prefer a weak SAHRC and by extension, a weak democracy.

I hope that you will see from the above that this matter is a principled issue. It may be an inconvenient truth, but one that will not disappear, by being ignored.

I await your response.

Thank you

Best regards

G Campher

[* This was the last correspondence between me and the PP on this crucial matter on the manner in which the SAHRC, a vital Chapter 9 institution, is constituted.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 19

**Illegal SAHRC – 2014**

'Trust in the Lord with all your heart; And lean not on your own understanding.'

Solomon (Proverbs 3:5)

The new Human Rights Legal Framework of South Africa

In 2013 Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Review held public hearings on the South African Human Rights Amendment Bill [B5-2013]. The outcome of the hearings and subsequent committee meetings led to the decision that it would be easier to draft a new bill, then to amendment the current legislation. The result is the South African Human Rights Commission Act (Act 40 of 2013), which repealed the Human Rights Commission Act, 1994 (Act No. 54 of 1994). It was assented to on 20 January 2014 by President Jacob Zuma. The act appeared in the Government Gazette on 22 January 2014 for general information.

The most important change (for me) is that the old act was repealed and replaced by Act 40. The implication is that there is no longer any reference to section 115 of the Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993) and the legal requirement of eleven Commissioners. As such the current legislation is acceptable and legal in my opinion. The state can legally enforce it on the People, because it has the consent of the People. It took the majority party (ANC) 12 years (since 2002, when it appointed too few Commissioners) and the intervention of an active citizen to correct its legal mistake ('crime').

See the preamble and new composition below.

Government Gazette – 22 Jan 2014

(English text signed by the President: Assented to 20 January 2014)

Act No. 40 of 2013: South African Human Rights Commission Act, 2013

ACT

To provide for the composition, powers, functions and functioning of the South African Human Rights Commission; to provide for the repeal of the Human Rights

Commission Act, 1994; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Preamble

SINCE sections 181(1)(b) and 184 read with item 20 of Schedule 6 to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, provide that the South African Human Rights Commission, established in terms of section 115 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act No. 200 of 1993), continues to function in terms of the legislation applicable to it; and for the conferring of certain powers on and the assignment of certain functions to the Commission;

AND SINCE the Constitution provides that the South African Human Rights Commission must-

• promote respect for human rights and a culture of human rights;

• promote the protection, development and attainment of human rights;

• monitor and assess the observance of human rights in the Republic; and

• annually require relevant organs of state to provide it with information on the measures that they have taken towards the realisation of the rights in the Bill of Rights

concerning housing, health care, food, water, social security, education and the environment;

AND SINCE the Constitution provides that the South African Human Rights Commission-

• has the powers, as regulated by national legislation, necessary to perform its functions, including the power to investigate and to report on the observance of human

rights; to take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated; to carry out research; and to educate; and

• has the additional powers and functions prescribed by national legislation,

Composition of Commission

5. (1) (a) The Commission consists of eight commissioners, who must-

(i) be South African citizens and fit and proper persons to hold office of the Commission, as contemplated in section 193(1) of the Constitution;

(ii) have a record of commitment to the promotion of respect for human rights and a culture of human rights;

(iii) be persons with applicable knowledge or experience with regard to matters connected with the objects of the Commission; and

(iv) be appointed by the President in accordance with section 193(4) and (5) of the Constitution.

(b) Subject to paragraph (a), any person is eligible to be appointed as a commissioner, except-

(i) anyone who is appointed by, or is in the service of, the state and receives remuneration for that appointment or service;

(ii) unrehabilitated insolvents;

(iii) anyone declared to be of unsound mind by a court of the Republic;

(iv) anyone who, after this section took effect, is convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment without the option of a fine,

either in the Republic, or outside the Republic if the conduct constituting the offence would have been an offence in the Republic; or

(v) anyone who is an office-bearer or a staff member of a political party, a member of the National Assembly, a permanent delegate to the National Council of

Provinces, a member of a provincial legislature or a member of a municipal council or who is on a candidate list for any of those positions.

(2) The commissioners referred to in subsection (1) may, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, be appointed as full-time or part-time commissioners and hold office for such fixed term as the National Assembly may determine at the time of such appointment, but not exceeding seven years: Provided that not fewer than six commissioners are appointed on a full-time basis and not more than two commissioners are appointed on a part-time basis.

(3) The President may, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, appoint a part-time commissioner as a full-time commissioner for the unexpired portion of that part-time commissioner's term of office if a vacancy in the office of a full-time commissioner occurs.

(4) Any person whose term of office as a commissioner has expired, may be reappointed for one additional term.

(5) (a) A commissioner may resign from office by submitting at least three calendar months' written notice thereof to the National Assembly, unless the National Assembly by resolution allows a shorter period in a specific case.

(b) A commissioner is regarded as having resigned if that commissioner-

(i) accepts nomination for the National Assembly, the National Council of Provinces, a provincial legislature or a municipal council; or

(ii) is elected or appointed as an office-bearer of a political party.

(c) The Commission must take appropriate steps, where necessary, against a commissioner-

(i) who fails to give notice in terms of paragraph (a); or

(ii) who gives such notice, but fails to comply with the prescribed period referred to in that paragraph, for the recovery of any remuneration and allowances, if any, that were paid to that commissioner in the case of-

(aa) subparagraph (i), for the three months immediately preceding the date on which his or her resignation took effect; and

(bb) subparagraph (ii), for the period that was less than the prescribed period referred to in paragraph (a).

(6) A commissioner may be removed from office in accordance with section 194(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

(7) The President may suspend a commissioner from office in accordance with section 194(3)(a) of the Constitution.

(8) The President must remove a commissioner from office in accordance with section 194(3)(b) of the Constitution.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 20

**General Elections 2014 and Beyond**

"True democracy is government by the people, but modern democracy is

'diluted fascism', because it is power in the hands of the few."

Mahatma Gandhi

General Elections 2014: The case for a spoilt vote

The constitutional mandate of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is to manage elections and ensure that they are free and fair. In its televised advertisement for the second and final voter registration opportunity over the weekend of the 8th and 9th February 2014, it featured citizens of different social positions stating the reason why they will vote. These included;

(a) 'My vote is my voice.'

(b) 'I will vote, because I love South Africa.'

(c) 'I vote for the future.'

(d) 'If you don't vote, you cannot complain.'

In a democracy, the government is chosen by the citizens through the voting process. The citizen has to make a choice based on the manifestoes (or promises) of the political parties and the record in government of the ruling party. Most of the parties fool the electorate some-of-the-time, but not all-of-the-time, because in time the citizens see through the same-old promises. It then happens that the choices on the ballot paper do not suit the voter: does he stay at home and let others choose a government for him or does he vote for 'the devil that he knows'? Below are two articles arguing that there is another alternative – spoil your vote.

(1) Spoilt Votes Count Too

In an article, titled Spoilt Votes Count Too, Juana Jaafar stated that all votes counted, even spoilt votes. The article was about the Indian elections and appeared on his website on 24 April 2012.

What if in all your wisdom you realise that none of the candidates contesting the elections represent your ideals? Worse still, if they and their political parties take a contrary position on the issues most important to you?

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" or "Choose the lesser of two evils". We have heard these too many times in conversations about politics. But are these really our only options? No, you can choose to spoil your vote.

Many young friends say they are not aware of this option. Some thought spoilt votes were merely a technicality where people mistakenly spoilt their ballots, when in fact they had meant to vote for a particular candidate. This is true in some cases.

Others have been outraged that casting a spoilt vote was even brought up as a topic of conversation, and one has been accused of being "irresponsible". After all, you are only given the opportunity to vote once every five years or so and it is your civic duty to mark that ballot. The latter is true.

However, no one should feel compelled to vote for any "devil" or "lesser evils". In France, Spain, Colombia and the Ukraine for example, voters have the option to vote 'none of the above' (NOTA) either on the ballot or by casting a blank vote. In Malaysia you can vote 'none of the above' by simply spoiling their ballots. It is completely legal to do so and it does not make one's vote any less legitimate. You are still performing your civic duty by participating in the electoral process, and you are voting according to your conscience.

This option is based on the principle that all legitimate consent requires that individuals also have the ability to withhold their consent. In other words, if your conscience does not allow you to vote for any of the candidates, you don't have to. In fact, it lets you go a step further to put on record that none of the candidates appeal to you.

There will be those who will say the act of deliberately spoiling a ballot is "as irresponsible" as not registering and showing up on polling day. This is not true.

So why show up at all? Well, there are at least two reasons to show up on polling day despite the spoilt vote.

The first is the sad state of our electoral roll. When the deceased are still registered as valid voters and individuals are registered in multiple constituencies, there is plenty of room for abuse. Show up on polling day to ensure no one else is voting in your name.

The second is to make a statement. The same way others are voting to express support for a candidate, a person who spoils the ballot is making a statement that she/he does not support any of the candidates. Every vote counts.

(2) Why you should spoil your ballot next year

By T.O Molefe (Newspaper Article - City Press; 2 September 2013)

My parents voted for the first time in their lives (in the 1994 general elections), not because they'd never had an interest, but because racist laws had barred them from the voting booth.

For weeks after, they showed each other, and us, their kids, that the ink on their thumbnails did not rub off easily. It was a symbol of the power they had attained – the power to have a say in how this country is governed. But the ink did rub off eventually, as did their power and that of most South Africans to have an equal say, if such a power ever truly existed.

Unbeknown to most of us, this country (South Africa) remains a de facto oligarchy, where a tiny number of votes count way more than the rest, and government is by the will of a handful of political and economic elites. So voting, despite how well-funded and promoted it is, is probably the least effective way to participate in this democracy.

This is why I will spoil my ballot in protest during the 2014 general election and direct my efforts towards democratic participation in other ways. If you have any sense, you will do the same. People I've mentioned this to react in shock.

They say it counts for nothing as the Independent Electoral Commission will chalk the spoiled ballot up to voter ignorance on my part. Others think I lose my right to complain or that it's sacrilege – that I'm pissing on the memory of those who bled and died so that I could vote. But the mechanistic act of putting a cross on a ballot isn't what people died for. They died in part for the right of each of us to have an equal say.

At present, owing to arrangements in how political parties are funded, we don't all have an equal say. Instead, as the Marikana massacre showed, powerful business and foreign interests have the ears of our politicians, and effective control of the police service we elect politicians to oversee. The arms deal showed us that acquisitions of goods and services by the state become a fetid feeding trough, where business interests lobby by hook and by crook to influence government decisions.

And our political parties accept millions from sources unknown and use this to lure us into the voting booth with vacuous promises that they will represent us equally. They will collectively spend as much as R800 million on electioneering. Just more than R100 million of this comes from us, the citizens, and the rest from their puppet masters lurking in the shadows. In this way, political parties and politicians of today are like the Bantustan presidents of old in that they are a front for minority rule.

Most parties and politicians accept that this situation is an affront to democracy on the basis of "one person, one vote". But instead of fixing it, they point fingers at each other and pay lip service to the problem because the arrangement suits them nicely.

The most direct message we can send – to tell them that they must legislate for an equal say for all, immediately – is for us to refuse to lend legitimacy to this skewed system by spoiling our ballots.

The decline in voter participation

In the article, 'More of the same? Taking stock of South Africa's electoral landscape in the run-up to the 2014 elections' Dr Cherrel Africa of the University of the Western Cape, found that the participation of voters in elections, as a proportion of the voting age population (VAP), has been declining since the first democratic general elections in 1994. Plainly put; as the VAP increased, due to population increase, the percentage in voter participation did not increase correspondingly. The voter turnout statistics is as follows;

1994 – 86%

1999 – 72%

2004 – 58%

2009 – 60%

The African National Congress (ANC), which is the ruling party for the last 20 years, received the following percentages of the total votes cast;

1994 – 62%

1999 – 66%

2004 – 70%

2009 – 66%

It may seem that the support for the ANC is high, but it has in fact decreased when compared to the VAP (and not to the percentage of votes it received). This is calculated by multiplying (a) the percentage of votes received by (b) the VAP. The decrease is as follows;

1994 – 53,3% [62% x 86%]

1999 – 47,5% [66% x 72%]

2004 – 40,6% [70% x 58%]

2009 – 39,6% [66% x 60%]

In its November 2013 'Pulse of the People' survey, the research services company, Ipsos, found that the ruling party (ANC) lost support, from 63% in November 2008 to 53% in November 2013.

The survey also showed that 77% (25.589-million) of eligible voters (i.e. VAP) are registered to vote. It means that 23% of eligible voters are not registered. Of the 77% that are registered, 7% will not vote, 6% refused to participate in the survey and 5% did not know which party they would choose. When we add the 23%, 7% and 6%, we get 36%. This is the voters that do not care about elections.

On the question; 'interest in politics and elections', the survey found that of all eligible voters, 20% are very interested in politics and elections, 43% are somewhat interested and 35% not interested in politics and elections. The last one is very close to our 36% above.

The impact of the spoilt vote

When one looks at the Ipsos survey and the fact that the ANC will win again, the 2014 general elections, promises to be 'more of the same'. However, our hard-fought democracy has been weakened. Weakened, because even though there are regular elections, i.e. opportunities for the citizens to give consent to the majority party to rule over them, other (substantive) components of our democracy has deliberately been weakened. Our institutions, like Parliament and the SAHRC, are weak; some are under attack, like the Public Protector and others are mired in scandal and shame, like the South African Police and the National Prosecuting Authority. No wonder, corruption, which is nothing but rich and powerful people stealing from the poor, is on the increase – this according to Corruption Watch.

The current brand of democracy is not people-centred. Each and every decision taken by the executive and Parliament benefits the ruling class at the expense of the People. The unhappiness of the People is shown by the decline in voter participation – refusing to participate in their democracy. Does it help the situation? No, because South Africa has a proportional electoral system, i.e. all the votes cast, whether it is many or few is divided proportionally between the contesting political parties. Yes, 2014 promises to be 'more of the same'.

In the last elections, i.e. the 2011 Local Government Elections, 57,6% of the 77% registered voters cast their ballots. It means that the percentage of people, who were of voting age, that did vote, was 44,35% [57,6% x 77%]. The majority of people of voting age, i.e. 55,56% did not vote and expected that 'it will not be more of the same'! Passive citizenship does not benefit the people, but the unscrupulous and unethical politicians. Sir Winston Churchill once said: "There is so much evil in this world, because the good people do nothing!" The fact that South Africa is on a slippery slope can only be put at the door of passive citizens, not the politicians.

The ruling party, which is supposed to be the guardians of this democracy, and the other political parties will not change the game. It is up to the People, the real guardians, to be vigilant and active to bring about the necessary change – to make Parliament and the government people-centred. The only way to bring change is through the ballot box; not passively by staying at home and then complaining about the bad and corrupt leaders, but actively to spoil the vote and to make a statement: 'I refuse to give my consent to unethical leaders to rule over me'. This is active citizenship and patriotism - so use your vote to determine the future of this country.

When the votes are counted in the 2014 elections and the 'spoilt vote' receives a significant percentage, then it would be clear to the political parties, specifically the ruling party that 'change has happened'. The elections will not be credible and would have to be rescheduled. If the above-mentioned passive citizens (i.e. the 55,56% of VAP) becomes active and spoil their votes, then the possibilities are endless for our motherland.

Three Steps to regain the promises of the Freedom Charter and the Constitution:

1. Spoil the ballot paper,

2. Become part of the People's Parliament movement,

3. Re-run the elections and let the People govern!

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 21

Conclusion

'Be the change, you want in the world.- Mahatma Gandhi

A blessing

'As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world' - Jesus Christ (John 17:18)

As a person that was send into this world by Jesus Christ, I am reminded of His warning in John 16, verse 33; "The world will Make you suffer, but be brave! I have defeated the world." My dismissal was therefore a blessing, because I saw and I felt the pain of a broken promise of Freedom – the deferred dream of a caring and people-centred People's Parliament.

Dismissal:

The ANC-centric Parliament fired two employees, who were exercising their constitutionally enshrined political right, a right that many people in the ANC-controlled parliament and government fought for. My eight year struggle for justice for Shamiel Abbas and myself has shown that Parliament's workplace policy was unconstitutional and unlawful. Through my efforts Parliament was forced to change the policy, but not before it tried to fire five other employees, who stood as candidates in the 2009 elections. I stepped in and saved their jobs. In this year's general elections, Parliament's 2000+ employees will be free to exercise their constitutionally enshrined political right: to stand for public office.

Pension:

Parliament deliberately refused my pension benefits, even though it knew that I qualified for it. I had to approach the Public Protector for assistance and after a year of 'back-and-forth' Parliament relented. However, the Public Protector did not recommend any sanctions for this blatant abuse of power.

Illegal SAHRC:

I have also shown that Parliament did not execute its mandate to ensure that the SAHRC was properly and legally constituted, since 2002. I made them aware of this, as well the SAHRC and members of the Portfolio Committee on Justice. I have also requested the assistance of the Public Protector to persuade Parliament to perform its duty. The Public Protector has however been unwilling, since 2010 to execute its constitutional mandate, i.e. "to investigate any conduct in the public administration that is alleged to be improper" – section 182(1)(a). The complaint that I registered with it has not been entertained – it is technically still open. However, after sustained pressure from myself and probably the SAHRC, Parliament relented and enacted a new and legally acceptable piece of legislation.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Franciscan Blessing*

'What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works?'

(James 2:14)

"May God bless you with a restless discomfort about easy answers, half-truths and superficial relationships, so that you may seek truth boldly and love deep within your heart.

May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression and exploitation of people, so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom and peace among all people.

May God bless you with the gift of tears to shed with those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation or the loss of all they cherish, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and transform their pain into joy.

May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you really CAN make a difference in this world, so that you are able with God's grace to do what others claim cannot be done.

And the blessing of God, the Supreme Majesty and our Creator,

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, who is our brother and Saviour,

And the Holy Spirit, our Advocate and Guide,

Be with you and remain with you, this day and forevermore.

Amen"

[* To the reader: This blessing below was the greeting of the monks of the Order of St. Francis. This blessing, that seems like a curse, provided me with the strength to run against 'the horses' in faith, because my God is ever-present and omni-potent. May you also be blessed.]

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

What is patriotism?

'The best way to find yourself, is to lose yourself in the service of others' - Gandhi

Below are the opinions of the 2008 United States presidential candidates; McCain and Obama, according to the Time Magazine of 14 July 2008.

1. John McCain

Patriotism isn't a choice, but an inheritance. Being born into a nation is like being born into a family. You may be called to reaffirm the commitment when you reach adulthood, but it is impressed upon you early on, by those who have come before.

In a country that has conscription, the recommitment may be to enlist in the armed forces, but generally speaking, in a democracy, it entails the participation of the citizen in elections – by standing as a candidate or by voting for another candidate (my emphasis).

If love of your country is another way of saying love of your fellow-countrymen, then 'patriotism' is another way of saying; 'service to a cause greater than self'.

2. Barack Obama

Patriotism is the American dream; a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles – being able to tuck in our children at night, knowing that they are fed, clothed and safe from harm. Patriotism is about the future (my emphasis).

On the future – Obama reminded us of what President JF. Kennedy once said: "We need to grab hold of the future". Kennedy quoted Goethe (the poet) who said: "Dr Faust lost the freedom of his soul, when he said to the passing moment, 'Stay, you are so beautiful'".

Kennedy warned, "If we pause for the passing moment, if we rest on our achievements, if we resist the pace of progress...then those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future."

Lesson for South Africa:

The ANC, as the main liberation movement, brought about freedom in the life-time of great South Africans, like Nelson Mandela – men and women that made huge sacrifices for the People of South Africa. Yes, the People have been freed politically from the chains of Apartheid, but the new obstacles to a People's Parliament are greed, corruption and selfishness.

The People cannot pause for the passing moment – the heroic achievements of the ANC – and vote for it every time, despite the many scandals of abuse and misuse of the Peoples' money and trust. The People must have the audacity to reach for the unreachable star, to reach for the unreachable dream of 1955 – a dream that has been watered by the blood of thousands of ordinary people that did something extraordinary - the dream of a People's Parliament.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hope, for the promised future

One generation, plants a tree, so that the next generation can enjoy the shade, thereof.

(Chinese Proverb)

According to Wikipaedia, the artist, George Frederic Watts interpreted 'hope' as a woman. She sits blindfolded on a globe, clutching an old wooden lyre with one string. She sits with her head against the lyre, so that she can hear the soft music, which she makes with the last remaining string.

In 1990 Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of President Barack Obama of the United States, gave a sermon, titled "audacity to hope" on the subject of 'hope'. He based the sermon on the painting of Watts - "with her clothes in rags, her body scarred and bruised and bleeding, her harp all but destroyed and with only one string left, she had the audacity to make music and praise God ...". According to Pastor Wright, the woman had only one string left – she was on her last, yet she showed that one did not need four strings to make music. For Pastor Wright that was the real message. God wants us, like the woman, to dare to believe, to dare to hope; yes to have the audacity, the boldness to hope. Obama attended that sermon of Pastor Wright and later adapted Wright's phrase "audacity to hope" to "audacity of hope". It became the title of his second book.

South Africa has the most progressive constitution in the world that protects the citizen in his/her work, social, economic and political spaces. This law is the foundation on which all other laws, rules and policies must be based. The reality in South Africa is however different, because 'justice' will elude ordinary citizens, as they cannot afford lawyers to take their cases to the courts, when their rights are violated by powerful individuals, companies or state institutions. The drafters of the Constitution foresee that such a situation would undermine our young democracy. As such, special institutions or bodies were created in Chapter 9 of the Constitution to promote and strengthen democracy. This is done by investigating improper state conduct on behalf of citizens, and if needs be, ensure that corrective measures are taken.

This book has shown that state institutions must not only be strong, but also be 'manned' by ethical 'servants of the People' to ensure that the powerful do not abuse their power at the expense of ordinary citizens, which is the backbone of this democracy.

What is the way forward?

In a democracy, the citizen has the power to decide who will rule over him or her. This is even more so in a constitutional democracy like South Africa, where the political rights of citizens are guaranteed in the Constitution – the right to stand for office and the right to vote for rulers of their choice.

South Africa will determine its future in 2014, when we vote for our leaders. After 20 years of freedom, the future must be placed on a new track, because the South African People is despondent. This was accentuated when a respected person, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, indicated that he would not vote in the 2009 elections. This is out of character for the Arch, because we know him as a rabble-rouser. Yes, it is his democratic right not to vote, but with every right comes a responsibility. In this case, and as stated by John McCain, the responsibility of a patriotic citizen is to vote, and if the Arch, like millions of South African voters, do not like any of the choices on offer, then he should spoil his vote. Will the Arch vote in 2014? One thing is certain; the future of the People is bleaker than in 2009!

The American Presidential elections in November 2008 showed that ordinary people could determine the future of a nation. They placed the country on a new track, by electing the first African-American as their leader. People from all walks of life went to the polls in their millions and did their civic duty - they participated in their democracy and made a cross on the ballot paper for 'hope'. But what if there are no candidates to put a country, like in South Africa on a new track?

It is vital that in times of trouble, of insecurity and of chaos, we need to have an audacity of hope. In his keynote address at the Democratic Party National Convention in 2007, Senator Barack Obama stated that his 'politics of hope' was not 'blind optimism'. It was the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs and the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores.

"Hope! Hope in the face of difficulty! Hope in the face of uncertainty! The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation - a belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead."

\-------------------------------------------------------------------

A dream deferred?

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African People. I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die – Nelson Mandela (Accused number 1 – Rivonia Treason trial)

Nelson Mandela and others made huge sacrifices so that we can have a democratic and free South Africa – an ideal that was achieved in his lifetime. However the type of free society that we currently have, is not what the People dreamed about – the People do not govern. People's power has been usurped...

Will the People allow the dream of a People's Parliament to be deferred yet again? Will the people follow the same voting pattern in 2014 and hope that change will come. The 'rules of logic' informs us that doing the same thing over and over, will not bring a different result. A well-known adage in politics is; "You can fool the People some of the time, but you cannot fool the People all of the time!"

To 'hope' without faith is empty, but to hope with faith is to have the audacity to see into the future - to see the promises of God, to see the promises of the Freedom Charter and the Constitution from afar. This is accentuated by the Book of Hebrews (verse 11:1): "To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see". 'Hope with faith' is to see the invisible future.

We, the People of South Africa are pilgrims in our own land and in this world. We, as citizens can be consumed by our memories (hero and ANC worshipping) and be stuck in the past, or we can be consumed by our dreams and live in the future.

In 1955 in Kliptown, the South African People called out their dream – the People shall govern. It is up to us, the electorate of 2014, to establish a People's Parliament by exercising our political right and electing men and women of integrity! If there are none; then to spoil our vote. After twenty years of freedom, it cannot be more of the same \- the dream can no longer be deferred!

****************************************************
