In defence of Lindiwe Sisulu - SA Constitution not Sacred, Judges not demi-gods

           Professor Arthur Mutambara

The SA Constitution is not Sacred and SA Judges are not Demigods.

 

By Arthur Guseni Oliver Mutambara

13 January 2022

 

Minister Lindiwe Sisulu penned an opinion piece on 7 January 2022 titled: ‘Hi Mzansi, have we seen justice?’ 

It was quite a refreshing critique of the challenges confronting South Africa. 

Sisulu’s right to express herself and the content of her remarks must be vigorously defended without equivocation or ambiguity.

On 8 January 2022, soon after I read the opinion piece, I publicly expressed the following remarks:

‘Wow, what a piece by Lindiwe Sisulu. I am pleasantly surprised that some in the ANC still get it and are prepared to articulate it eloquently. The issue is how to get such incisive thinking to influence the ANC and the country's direction. Is it a lost cause?’

I stand by these utterances.

There has been quite several articles and remarks attacking Minister Sisulu. The basis of the repudiation can be placed in three categories as follows:

 

1) The context and motive of the opinion piece. 

 

It is argued that: 'Sisulu has been a Cabinet Minister, a leading parliamentarian and a key leader of the ANC for 27 years. What has she done about the issues she is raising in those years? She is a member of the RET faction of the ANC and is just campaigning for the ANC presidency.’ 

Well, I concede the context and motives of the Minister’s piece must be interrogated. However, the discussion must not end there. 

That will be disingenuous and despicable. 

The content of the piece must be engaged on its own merits. If your position is that: ‘The message is fine, but I don’t like the messenger,’ then say so and tell us what you are going to do about her unassailable message.

Lindiwe Sisulu

 

2) The opinion piece is an attack on the Constitution.

 

Well, a few questions will assist in dispelling this misguided disposition. Is the SA Constitution the supreme law of the land? Yes. Is the document sacred? No. Is it flawed? Yes, and it must be criticized, and fundamental changes sought. Why? Well, the SA Constitution is a ceasefire document (a settlement agreement) between the architects of Apartheid and its beneficiaries on one side and the victims of Apartheid on the other.  It is a compromise and an imperfect document, pure and simple. 

Obviously, such a Constitution will contain clauses, provisions and values meant to protect the interests of the architects and beneficiaries of Apartheid. 

This is common sense.

 

3) The opinion piece consists of insults against the SA Judges.

 

The key mover of this view is SA Acting Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. Well, who are these SA judges? Are they demigods or holy men and women who are not mentally influenced by their history and current circumstances? 

Certainly not! 

What is that history, and what are those current circumstances? 

We can state a few aspects of the history - Slavery, Colonialism, Apartheid and Patriarchy. Currently, what do we have in SA? We have economic and social Apartheid 

(Let us be clear, what ended in 1994 was political Apartheid, period), and of course, in 2022, we are still swimming in the pool of Neocolonialism and Patriarchy. 

None of us (myself included) can claim to be completely free of mental slavery, colonized mindsets or patriarchal dispositions. None.

 

We are all consciously or subconsciously victims of our history and current circumstances. 

Ngugi wa Thiong'o taught us that; ‘Decolonizing the mind is the most difficult exercise’, while Steve Biko asserted that: ‘The most powerful weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.’

Judge Raymond Zondo must show SA his certificate of mental decolonization, tell us when he obtained it and the person/authority that granted it. 

No, he (like all of us) is still a mental victim of history and the SA context, consciously or subconsciously.

 

When someone says: 'Mutambara, you are displaying a colonized mindset and behaving like a male chauvinist,'

I should NOT be offended. 

Instead, I should accept the criticism, review and reflect on my actions, do some soul searching and change my ways. 

I am a product of colonial education and society, and I live in a neo-colonial and patriarchal society. 

How can I vouch for the perfection and nobility of my subconscious mind? That would be crass arrogance rooted in unadulterated ignorance.

 

So, Judge Zondo and your colleagues take a deep breath and absorb the message from Minister Sisulu. Do some reflection, learn one or two things and change your ways. 

We all must do this. 

Another point. Don't tell us: 'Criticism is fine but insults, no.' Who are you to distinguish an insult from criticism? Under what authority do you make that distinction? Is that not a subjective exercise? 

Just take the message from the Minister without labelling it. Is the idea to label the remarks as insults so that you can dismiss them without the thorough reflection that they deserve? Of course, only children will allow you to get away with that strategy. 

There are none here.

In conclusion, let us have a healthy debate about the issues raised by Minister Sisulu. There should be no holy cows in the struggle to establish a SA characterized by peace, inclusive democracy, social justice and shared prosperity. 

In that discourse, the SA Constitution is not sacred, and SA judges are not demigods.