Sub-judice a cynical strategy
IHAVE been advised by legal counsel not to write this column if it deals with state capture, mafia state, President Jacob Zuma’s tax affairs or the confusing career of Mr Brian Molefe.
However, after brief consideration, I have decided that the matters are of overriding public interest.
They are not sub judice, although politicians, business folk, captains of industry and lawyers with vested interests sophistically use this legal category to prevent public discussion of these important questions.
The phrase “sub judice” literally means “under a judge”, in plain English “under legal consideration”.
The extent to which this implies, that the matter may or may not be discussed, varies under different legal dispensations.
In recent years the use of sub judice status has become a cynical legalistic strategy to prevent a matter being publicised.
If an adverse legal judgment is given, the increasingly common practice is to lodge an appeal and continue to claim the sub judice status.
In the current parliamentary enquiry into the exact status of Mr Molefe, even the ANC members lost patience with the use of this strategy frustration.
They reportedly called out to the Eskom board members: “Account for the mess and stop subjudice-ing us!”