Charles Rwomushana we’re yesterday released on bond – His own story on why he was detained

His own Witness Account:

“I was, yesterday, released on police bond to report today.  This action by Mr Kale and his police emanates from the Friday radio one Spectrum programme.  There are largely three issues that have haunted their souls; My assertion that they extra judiciary executed civilians in Kasese,  The Judiciary is an appendage of the NRA occupation, That Mr Kigundu didn’t have his eye glasses on and read wrong results.  My argument remains that any armed forces that are not wicked cannot pride in killing civilians” (…) “Forces under civilised command would always do their best to protect civilians and where civilians have violated the law do all their best to bring the said civilians to face justice. Where the civilians are riotus you deploy the force with protection gear like helmets and stone shields” (…)“You can only deploy an armed force without protection gear against a riotus population if your intention is to gun down the said population.  That Mr Kale and the Minister of Internal affairs made judgement and condemned the executed civilians without an investigation and besides the subsequent statement of Mr Kale quoted by the media that they would gun down more civilians. …and that they indeed gunned down more civilians later further reinforces my belief that they have it as their policy to gun down civilians” (…) “Indeed the Secretary General of the NRA occupation Ms Lumumba disclosed it as their policy of gunning down riotus civil population.  I certainly oppose extra judicial executions.  I will continue to be the voice of those poor souls that were executed. .The known and the unknown and those of you who are yet to be extra judiciary executed.  Of course those who followed court proceedings know more than I do that Kigundu is yet to read the correct results.  This election was a farce. It was rigged. Period” (…) ”Who ever wants to hang for that belief and opinion kindly hurry.  I said and I still mantain my line that in the constituency Assembly where I was a member, we aspired for an Independent Judiciary. The NRA occupation won’t let this happen.  The NRA occupation has raided courts severally. The Court ordered Mr Elias Lukwago back to office and that was ignored. Since then they even have never cleaned Mr Lukwago’ s office.  I told the NRA occupation police force that I would repeat the same views on any other platforms because I believe I’m wholly right and the NRA occupation is wholly wrong.  It’s my natural right to resist evil and I won’t slacken even in the face of death.  Off to the NRA occupation police to preach the gospel of liberation from the NRA occupation.  God is Great” (Charles Rwomushana, 31.03.2016).

Nkandla: DA to proceed with arguments before the ConCourt (03.02.2016)

These are the remarks delivered at a press conference held in Parliament. The Leader was joined by the Chairperson of the DA’s Federal Executive, James Selfe MP, and DA shadow Minister of Justice, Adv Glynnis Breytenbach MP.

The DA, after taking legal advice, has decided to proceed with presenting our Heads of Argument before the Constitutional Court scheduled for Tuesday, 09 February 2016. In so doing we will be seeking the relief outlined in our Notice Of Motion.

The DA notes the settlement offer made by President Zuma but contends that the contents of his settlement offer do not comply with the remedial actions as ordered by the Public Protector in her report entitled Secure in Comfort. In fact, we contend that the President designating the Auditor-General (A-G) to come to a determination as to how much he is liable is the latest attempt to establish a parallel process, for a fifth time.

Specifically, the DA will argue that President Zuma’s failure to engage rationally with the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action pertaining to him was manifestly irrational, illegal and unconstitutional. We furthermore contend that the President’s decision to substitute the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector with a determination by the Police Minister, SIU or Parliament  on whether he was liable for any of the costs was illegal and unconstitutional.

Legal precedent at present, as established by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), is very clear that “an individual or body affected by any finding, decision or remedial action taken by the Public Protector is not entitled to embark on a parallel investigation process to the of the Public Protector, and adopt the position that the outcome of that parallel process trumps the findings taken by the Public Protector.”

Furthermore, should an affected body or individual seek to challenge the findings and remedial actions of the Public Protector they should do so by way of a review application in a court of law. The President to date has not done so; he has instead frustrated the work of the Public Protector by way of erecting parallel processes, which have no legal basis.

Legal certainty about the powers of the Public Protector, and the force and effect of remedial action taken by the Public Protector, are vital to the successful functioning of our constitutional democracy. That is why the Democratic Alliance (DA) took the SABC and the Minister of Communications to court when they disregarded the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector to suspend Mr Hlaudi Motsoeneng, and to institute disciplinary proceedings against him.

It is clear that the President Zuma has deployed a contingent of Ministers and ANC Members of Parliament to defend the indefensible act of constructing a palace at the expense of the people of the Republic. Those doing the President’s bidding have even gone as far as ignoring Court judgements in order drive a political agenda, despite swearing in their oath of office to uphold the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the Republic. Now before the highest Court in the land, we are confident that the Constitutional Court will bring the Nkandla matter to its logical conclusion by determining that President Zuma do what the Secure in Comfort report by the Public Protector ordered; which is that he pay back a reasonable percentage of the costs of the non-security upgrades to his private residence.

For too long President Zuma and the ANC have abdicated their responsibility to uphold the Rule of the Law and the Constitution, but have done everything to undermine to the work of the Public Protector and the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court will, on Tuesday, consider this matter in order to provide legal certainty about the Public Protector’s powers. The law has been developed in some degree in the Schippers judgment, confirmed by the SCA and that the Constitutional Court will rule definitively on the matter.