Sunday Times

Naught for your comfort Gold stars

Judge Richard Goldstone has a history of upsetting authority. In 1982 he upended the notorious Group Areas Act with a single judgment that enraged the apartheid government. Then, in the build-up to the transition in SA in 1994, he led an inquiry that veri

- By JONATHAN ANCER

● Judge Richard Goldstone is among the world’s most widely admired judges. At home, he served on the Supreme Court and in the Appellate Division, where he chiselled away at apartheid laws, and was a member of our first Constituti­onal Court. He has led fact-finding commission­s all over the world; was the former chief war-crimes prosecutor for the UN; and his Goldstone commission is the gold standard of inquiries. He has been on hit lists and a target of smear campaigns; but the one thing I didn’t know about the 80-year-old judge is that he’s the spitting image of Kevin Spacey.

His Lordship Mr Justice Goldstone, regarded as one of the most trusted people in SA, chuckles softly.

“I don’t see it myself, but people have said I resemble him,” he says. He used to like the comparison until the abuse allegation­s against Spacey broke and the disgraced actor’s house of cards came crashing down.

Goldstone is closely following the Zondo commission of inquiry into state capture, which has echoes of the watershed inquiry he led 27 years ago.

The early 1990s were politicall­y tense times. The country teetered on the edge of a cliff. Negotiatio­ns kept stalling in the wake of violence, assassinat­ions, intimidati­on and “third force” hit squads. It was a time of accusation­s and counter-accusation­s. Goldstone’s awkwardly named fact-finding inquiry — the Commission of Inquiry Regarding the Prevention of Public Violence and Intimidati­on — was establishe­d as part of a peace accord brokered in September 1991. It needed someone to head it. The parties involved in the fraught talks couldn’t agree on anything so it says a lot about Goldstone’s integrity and independen­ce that they unanimousl­y approved of him.

There was a lot at stake and the commission enabled negotiatio­ns to remain on course. There’s a lot at stake now and Goldstone says deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo is doing an excellent job encouragin­g evidence to come out and bringing facts to light, implicatin­g the usual suspects.

The Goldstone commission helped SA break from its apartheid shackles; and he hopes the Zondo commission will help the country shake off the shackles of corruption.

“My sincere hope is the prosecutin­g authority will take it up and people who have committed corruption on this level end up behind bars,” he says.

Because Grandad said so

Speaking of bars, Goldstone joined the bar in 1962 after graduating with an LLB from Wits University, where he had served as president of the student representa­tive council and was active in antiaparth­eid student politics. When he was a child he had spent a lot of time with his maternal grandfathe­r, who decided his grandson was cut out to be a lawyer — and that sealed Goldstone’s fate.

He built a thriving practice as a commercial lawyer, becoming a senior counsel. He was asked to sit on the bench as an acting judge for six weeks. Then he was approached to do a six-month stint. The difficult decision came when he was offered a permanent position and had to face a challenge of conscience: would he join the apartheid judiciary?

The Legal Resources Centre wanted sympatheti­c judges and encouraged him to accept. They reckoned that if he didn’t, a less sympatheti­c judge would.

“My role model was John Didcott, who was on the bench. He had produced some wonderful judgments that criticised racial discrimina­tion and various other apartheid laws, and it seemed to me that was a sensible way to go,” Goldstone says.

In 1980 he became the youngest Supreme Court judge in SA at the time. The job came with a heavy price, though: he would have to enforce laws and impose sentences he didn’t like — such as the death penalty, which he did twice.

He was already on the bench when a famous debate raged about whether liberals should accept judgeships. Law professor Raymond Wacks argued they shouldn’t because the laws they were required to enforce were morally indefensib­le. Law professor John Dugard believed it was better to have a moral judge finding a way through the unjust laws.

This is what Goldstone did. One particular case in 1981, State v Govender, which he heard on appeal, had significan­t consequenc­es. Govender, an Indian woman, appeared before him. Her “crime” was that she was living in a white suburb in Johannesbu­rg. The Group Areas Act of that era said anyone found guilty of contraveni­ng it “may be evicted”, and ejection orders followed automatica­lly. When the case came before Goldstone, his eye fell on the word “may”.

“The act said ‘may’ be evicted, not ‘shall’ be evicted. It seemed to me that magistrate­s had a judicial discretion to exercise and for 31 years — from 1950 to 1981 — they had been acting incorrectl­y.”

Goldstone ruled that after a guilty finding there should be a separate hearing at which all relevant circumstan­ces, including alternativ­e accommodat­ion, should be considered. He set aside Govender’s eviction order. It was a significan­t blow to the government because it contribute­d substantia­lly to the Group Areas Act becoming unenforcea­ble.

There were other consequenc­es of that ruling. “Gaye Derby-Lewis, a member of parliament for the Conservati­ve Party, asked [then prime minister] PW Botha why the government was allowing thousands of black people to come into white areas,” Goldstone says.

“Botha’s disingenuo­us response was: ‘Ask judge Goldstone.’”

A decade later Derby-Lewis’s husband Clive was found guilty, along with Janusz Walus, of the ● In a poll in 1992, Goldstone was voted SA’s newsmaker of the year, ahead of Nelson Mandela and the then president FW de Klerk.

● As chief prosecutor for the UN, he secured the recognitio­n of rape as a war crime.

● In 2004, the then UN secretaryg­eneral Kofi Annan appointed him to the independen­t committee to investigat­e the Iraqi oil-for-food programme.

● He has received the Internatio­nal Human Rights Award of the American Bar Associatio­n, the Richard E Neustadt Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the World Peace Through Law Award from Washington University, and has 20 honorary doctorates. assassinat­ion of SACP leader Chris Hani. During the investigat­ion police uncovered a hit list of potential targets, with Nelson Mandela at the top, Hani at no 3, and, at no 5, Goldstone.

Gaye Derby-Lewis told the Truth and Reconcilia­tion Commission (TRC) that Goldstone’s name appeared on the list because he had allowed “blacks to come into Hillbrow”.

Goldstone had also received death threats from rightwinge­rs for criticisin­g the actions of the police in the 1990 Sebokeng massacre. Police had opened fire on a crowd of 50,000 protesters marching from Sebokeng to Vereenigin­g to present grievances. When the shooting stopped, 14 people were dead and hundreds more wounded. Goldstone headed an inquiry into the massacre and recommende­d the police be prosecuted for murder and culpable homicide.

The Sebokeng inquiry set the stage for the Goldstone commission. Goldstone knew this commission wouldn’t succeed if he didn’t keep everyone on board and have the full support of all the parties.

According to the law, he had to give reports to the then president, FW de Klerk.

“The first major report was issued with a government spin alleging that we had found that the violence was caused by the ANC and Inkatha rivalry, which was a misreprese­ntation of the report,” says Goldstone.

Mandela picked this up and castigated the report and Goldstone.

As far as Goldstone was concerned this signalled the end of the commission. He changed his mind a few hours later when his phone rang. It was Mandela.

“Mandela said he was phoning for two reasons: the first is to apologise. He said that after reading the report he agreed with it. The second reason was to say he had called a press conference and intended to apologise to me.

“He said, ‘May I say you have accepted my apology?’ He knew that without the public apology the commission would be harmed — and he didn’t want that.”

After that Goldstone insisted the reports go out within 24 hours and without a government statement.

One of the main questions of the commission was whether a third force existed, which the National Party had always denied. The commission found it did and the lead-up to going public with that informatio­n was a dangerous time for Goldstone.

“The police tried to find informatio­n to blackmail me,” he says. “They broke into my apartment and went through all my papers and documents, and my tax returns for the previous 20 years — but there was nothing they could find.”

In addition to exposing the third force, which pulled the rug from under the feet of the Nats, the commission issued 47 reports, carried out hundreds of investigat­ions and triggered the initiation of 16 prosecutio­ns.

Goldstone, remarked Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, had made an indispensa­ble contributi­on to the country’s transition to democracy. Just as the Sebokeng inquiry prepared the ground for the Goldstone commission, the Goldstone commission set the stage for Tutu’s TRC.

Goldstone’s work in investigat­ing violence led to him being asked to serve as the first chief prosecutor of the UN’s Internatio­nal Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. He signed the tribunal’s first indictment­s, including those against Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic for the

Srebrenica genocide and other human rights violations in Bosnia and Herzegovin­a.

He suffered the horrors second-hand and the real heroes and heroines were the investigat­ors, who met the victims, sometimes going into war zones.

“It was harrowing enough to read what they had been collecting,” he says.

“It was difficult to accept that human beings can treat other human beings with such unbelievab­le cruelty. But this has happened throughout history — the Holocaust, apartheid, and the death camps and terrible use of mass rape as a form of warfare in Bosnia and Herzegovin­a.”

He had sleepless nights. The big numbers shock but don’t numb; it was the personal cases that got to him.

Goldstone returned to SA and served as a justice of the Constituti­onal Court from 1994 to 2003.

“My main achievemen­t and pride was being a member of the first Constituti­onal Court — that was a highlight of my career. It was very exhilarati­ng. It was a symbol of a new era.”

He has wonderful memories of his stint on the Constituti­onal Court, and painful memories of another major task — heading the Gaza commission.

Alienating Israelis

In 2009, Goldstone was asked to lead a fact-finding mission created by the UN Human Rights Council to investigat­e violations related to the Gaza conflict.

It was always going to be contentiou­s. He accepted because he felt it would be hypocritic­al to have agreed to investigat­e crimes in SA, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, and to refuse to investigat­e the Middle East just because he is Jewish.

The mission concluded that Israel and Hamas had both committed violations of internatio­nal human rights law and internatio­nal humanitari­an law, which sparked outrage in Israel and the initiation of a personal campaign against Goldstone, including a threat to prevent him from attending his grandson’s bar mitzvah.

A smear campaign was launched, calling him a “Nat boetie” and accusing him of having been an apartheid stooge who sentenced people to death.

He responded that the two people whom he had condemned to death in the 1980s had committed murders gratuitous­ly during armed robberies. “In the absence of extenuatin­g circumstan­ces the imposition of the death sentence was mandatory. My two assessors and I could find no extenuatin­g circumstan­ces in those two cases.”

He had expected criticism but not venomous personal attacks. Two years later, he amended the report after an internal Israeli military investigat­ion led him to accept that it was not Israel’s policy to intentiona­lly target civilians.

It was a painful episode and he doesn’t like talking about it. “My main regret is that we didn’t get any cooperatio­n from the Israeli government. I think we might have had a different outcome if we had.”

The controvers­y raged but his legacy — as someone who has stood for justice and supported human rights for all people — remains intact.

The wheels of justice keep turning and Goldstone hasn’t slowed down. He’s on the board of Physicians for Human Rights (among other boards); is a trustee of the South African Student Solidarity Foundation for Education, a fundraisin­g initiative by former student leaders to help current students in need; and spends considerab­le time working with the Africa Group for Justice and Accountabi­lity.

He is also fighting grand corruption with a US district judge in Boston, Mark Wolf. They are working on a project called Triple I, Integrity Initiative­s Internatio­nal, which aims to pave the way for an internatio­nal anti-corruption court that functions like the Internatio­nal Criminal Court — countries might fail to investigat­e their own kleptocrat­s but the internatio­nal court has jurisdicti­on.

The past 80 years have been busy and eventful and he’s looking forward to reading The Trials of Richard Goldstone, a biography by Daniel Terris, to be published this month. “I’m sure I’ll learn things about myself I had forgotten,” he says.

 ?? Picture: Ruvan Boshoff ?? Judge Richard Goldstone’s inquiry into the political violence of the 1990s set the standard for such commission­s.
Picture: Ruvan Boshoff Judge Richard Goldstone’s inquiry into the political violence of the 1990s set the standard for such commission­s.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa