Where are these campaigns when it comes to the land?

How I wish campaigns such as Save South Africa, Defend Our Democracy, Casac and Outa were vocal on some of the issues affecting ordinary South Africans. For example, where are these campaigns when there is a debate about land restitution? What about campaigning for the rights of farm workers? Are these not constitutionally important matters? Or are they only important when they affect white people and the black elite?

My neighbour once invited me to join his campaign to save the rhino. In return I asked him to join me in the call for the return of the land, starting with people who were removed from District Six, and that was the last time we spoke.

The land issue is the most serious threat to our democracy. The struggle for liberation was about the return of the land that was stolen from the indigenous people of Africa. It is therefore not surprising that campaigns that are led by white liberals will not prioritise the land issue. It is like a black person joining the DA, and expecting the party to fight for the return of the land or to defend farm workers who face daily harassment from farm owners.

The Defend Our Democracy campaign should not only be active against Zuma and his RET crooks, but must also mobilise on issues affecting ordinary people. Otherwise its supporters will be exposed for their hypocrisy.

God bless South Africa, and return the land to its rightful owners.

Bonga Mthembu, Cape Town

Court must say why lawyers ran

It certainly does not come as any surprise that Jacob Zuma’s legal team have withdrawn from representing him at virtually the eleventh hour in his upcoming corruption trial. This, in many respects, can be perceived as part of his Stalingrad strategy to further delay the judicial process, buying him more time for freedom were he to be found guilty.

Whatever the reasons for his legal team making a run for it, which I suspect will not be revealed to the public by the court, I believe this is a travesty of justice.

As this matter concerns all South Africans who have been affected in one way or another by acts or omissions in the conduct of Zuma while he was president, I believe the reasons should be publici juris.

Now that he has to pay for legal costs of about R25m out of his own pocket, Zuma may well plead poverty, request a postponement for new counsel or legal aid and continue to frustrate the legal process.

While he will probably have to cut his coat to suit his cloth as he contemplates how to prevent his opening gambit in the courtroom, the hapless public who desperately seek resolution to this matter will have to wait — and wait.

Zuma will argue that his right to representation cannot be denied — and it must not be — but it does not take rocket science to see where this latest ploy is headed as he pursues a form of legal filibuster to stay enshrined in his taxpayerfunded Nkandla homestead.

I suppose ultimately he will defend to his death, either by natural attrition or possible incarceration, his right to defy any litigation that will reveal the truth and place him in legal jeopardy with regard to his role as an alleged corrupt governor of SA during his presidency. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Zuma may well be saying, “I shall fight them on the beaches, I shall fight on the landing grounds, I shall fight in the fields and in the streets, I shall fight in the hills, I shall never surrender.” Narendh Ganesh, Durban North

Making it lovely for the ANC

S’thembiso Msomi continues with the

Peter Bruce narrative that we may have erred in campaigning for the ANC but, dear reader, please understand that the problem with the ANC government is not the ANC but the opposition.

What a lovely position for the ANC to find itself in. When its crimes and inefficiencies can no longer be hidden or downplayed it is suddenly the fault of the opposition? A bit like the Bell Pottinger white monopoly capital ruse.

Why not just evaluate the performance of the DA objectively? Are the municipalities, the metro and the province it governs better run than those administered by the ANC? If so, why on earth would you urge readers to keep voting for the ANC? If you have not the capabilities to work it out for yourselves, just consult the auditor-general’s report.

Tim Spindler, Bryanston

Cancel the levies on basic foods

In these times of high food prices and mass poverty, every effort should be made to minimise the costs of basic foods. Yet these are boosted by statutory agricultural levies legislated in terms of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act.

These levies are utilised in numerous agricultural industries for the financing of certain permissible expenses like research and market development, and are, I believe, approaching R1bn per annum. Products affected include, but are not limited to: red meat, including imports, pork, maize, milk, potatoes, cereals, various fruits, sorghum and nuts.

The levy is collected along the product chain but is financed by the consumer. It can be applied to export activity, which has achieved much success in many industries and is paid for by foreign consumers, as well as locally produced and imported products paid for by South African consumers.

There are, however, a number of industries where only a small portion of levy income is utilised to develop markets, with the balance retained to finance other non-levy activities.

Surely such levies should immediately be cancelled or limited to cover essential costs only?

Write to PO Box 1742, Saxonwold 2132; SMS 33662; e-mail: tellus@sundaytimes.co.za; Fax: 011 280 5150 All mail should be accompanied by a street address and daytime telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to cut letters