Constitution gives us free speech
Protest at results announcement
IT is our duty, rather our obligation, for all of us in South Africa to familiarise ourselves with this very important document called the constitution. Many hours and sleepless nights were spent by constitution drafters to compile this very important document, for us to live harmoniously with one another.
The sooner that all of us are au fait with this document, the better. This should be our manual and workbook that all of us should have in our pockets, cars and households, and constantly study it daily for our own benefit.
This was drafted for us to be aware of our rights and responsibilities.
I am specifically referring to the incident at the IEC function in Pretoria, where it was formally announcing the municipal election results, on Saturday. While President Jacob Zuma was addressing the audience, young women stood up in front of the audience with placards in their hands with inscriptions like “Remember Khwezi” and “Kanga”.
Although these words never accused anybody, some would interpret Khwezi as the woman who accused Zuma of raping her in 2005. Kanga was the name of the wrap believed to have been worn by the woman on that day.
These young women protested in absolute silence.
My concern is that when Zuma finished addressing the audience, some security personnel charged at the young women, grabbing the placards and dragging the women out of the IEC hall.
Subsequent to this, Social Development Minister and ANC Women’s League president Bathabile Dlamini was fuming during an interview with eNCA television station, saying the women’s actions were unbecoming, rude and uncivilised for, as she put it, Zuma was never convicted of the alleged rape of Khwezi.
I have two problems with these incidents. My first is about the security personnel who evicted the women and confiscated their placards.
I fail to understand what the women did that was illegal or threatening towards the president. The South African constitution, chapter 2, the Bill of Rights states, “Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions”.
As far as I am concerned, the women were peaceful, unarmed and unthreatening to the safety of the president and those around him. While the president was addressing the crowd, they never even attempted to disturb his speech.
He read his speech and finished it without disturbance, but why treat the young women like that? They were exercising their democratic and constitutional right of freedom of expression.
I would be very glad if somebody could convince me of the unlawfulness and the threat these women posed to the president.
Second, Dlamini, in my view, had it all wrong. She said Zuma was acquitted in the Khwezi case and this is true.
The placards never said Khwezi was raped and by whom, but leaders and adults do not only have to act legally to fulfil their duties to be examples to society. Leaders should also act responsibly, morally and ethically.
This is not a favour from the leaders, it is their responsibility.
It is common cause that the president, as per the judge’s ruling in 2005, did not rape Khwezi – fine, but did he act morally, responsibly or ethically with Khwezi?
One could say, no, Khwezi being the daughter of his fallen comrade.
The dictionary says the word comrade also means friend, chum, buddy, mate, pal and companion.
I fail to understand that to a reasonable person to sleep with the daughter of your friend is moral, responsible or ethical.
Was it criminal on Saturday for the young women to protest peacefully against the immoral, irresponsible and unethical manner in which Khwezi was treated by the president in 2005?
As this is Women’s Month in August, is it not proper for women to remember injustices and immorality done to women even if these happened in 1956 and before?
I plead with authorities and public figures that before they overreact, let them stick to the constitution and not act emotionally, because of the status of the person involved and the occasion where this happens.
This is a warning that public figures should behave and if they do not behave, they will, inevitably, face the consequences and embarrassment as it happened on Saturday. Unfortunately.
Lawana David Vaaltein, Uitenhage