CASE NO: CCT /07 In the matter between:
MERAFONG DEMARCATION FORUM 1st Applicant ISRAEL MOLEPE MOGALE 2nd Applicant
PAUL NGWANE 3rd Applicant
PAUL THABANE MOSENOGI 4th Applicant JOHANNES MOTSUMI 5th Applicant TEBOGO JEREMIAH DANIEL 6th Applicant
PEARL KHANYILE 7th Applicant
ALFRED MOTLOUNG 8th Applicant
MXOLISI BLESSING DILIMA 9th Applicant MICHAEL MADULUBE 10th Applicant TELEKI JOHANNES MATHIKGE 11th Applicant
and
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SOUTH AFRICA 1st Respondent
MINISTER OF PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT 2nd Respondent
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT 3rd Respondent
PREMIER OF GAUTENG 4th Respondent MEC FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT GAUTENG
PROVINCE 5th Respondent
THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE 6th Respondent
THE PREMIER OF NORTH WEST 7 Respondent THE MEC FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR
NORTH WEST 8th Respondent
THE NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE 9th Respondent THE MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD 10th Respondent MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 11th Respondent WEST RAND DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY 12th Respondent SOUTHERN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY 13th Respondent THE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 14th Respondent THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF PROVINCES 15th Respondent THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION 16th Respondent ______________________________________________________
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
______________________________________________________
I, the undersigned,
CORNELIUS RUDOLPH JANSEN state under oath as follows:
1.
1.1 I am an adult male and admitted advocate employed as the National Director of Lawyers for Human Rights at IDASA Democracy Centre, 357 Visagie Street, Pretoria.
1.2 The facts herein fall within my personal knowledge unless is otherwise apparent or expressly otherwise stated. These facts are also true and correct.
2.
As National Director of Lawyers for Human Rights I also do service as counsel in the Pretoria Law Clinic of Lawyers for Human Rights.
As such, I have been handling the file of the Merafong Demarcation Forum. The attorney allocated to the case, Mr Fritz Gaerdes, is no longer with the organisation and is presently abroad.
3.
To the extent that it may be necessary, I wish to explain the delays in bringing this application to the above Honourable Court.
4.
During June 2006 I was first contacted by members of the Executive Committee of the First Applicant. A consultation was duly
on 22 June 2006.
5.
The first applicant is a broad based social movement that represents all civil society groupings in Khutsong. Some of these groupings and individuals had brought unsuccessfull litigation before the Pretoria High Court before the local government election. The case was aimed at interdicting the local government elections.
Groupings within the the applicant had also attempted to seek redress with the Human Rights Commission and the Public Protector. They were then referred to our organisation. It became public knowledge after the election that residents in Khutsong had not participated in the election. Only 320 people voted out of an electorate of about 30 000. It would appear that the applicant had been attempting to resolve the issue in a variety of ways before June 2006.
6.
At that stage, June 2006, the Matatiele matter had already been argued before the above honourable court and judgment had been reserved. It was therefore not possible to join that application.
7.
Due to all the legal uncertainties at that stage, I did not regard it prudent for clients to initiate separate proceedings in the Khutsong matter until such time as the judgment of the above honourable Court had been handed down in the Matatiele matter, and some certainty had been obtained in respect of the legal position. Lawyers for Human Rights is a public interest law entity that uses donor funding for its litigation activities. As such we must always be prudent in our decisions to take on litigation or not. In fact, we have a litigation committee that consists of employees and board members that take these decisions.
8.
The judgment in the Matatiele matter was delivered on 18 August 2006. It was obvious at that stage that the community of Khutsong may very well have a cause of action against the provincial boundary demarcation effected by the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act.
9.
After obtaining the details of all the prospective respondents in the matter, Mr Gaerdes addressed a letter of demand to the First Respondent and cited all the other prospective respondents as addressees. I attach the letter of demand hereto as annexure “RJ1”.
10.
During the course of November 2006 I was contacted by the State Attorney to whom the matter had been allocated, a Ms Pillay. She informed me that the state entities were awaiting opinion of senior counsel before they could take any decision on the letter of demand.
11.
She indicated that a response would be forthcoming before 15 December 2006.
12.
This conversation was followed by two further letters under my signature dated 28 November 2006 and 10 January 2007 respectively. I annex these hereto as Annexures “RJ2” and
“RJ3”. I respectfully submit that the content is self explanatory.
13.
By 15 January no response had been received from either the State Attorney, or from any of the other respondents. At that stage I forwarded the papers for consultations and an opinion by senior counsel. I received an opinion from senior counsel on 15 February 2007.
14.
During the period 15 February to 15 March 2007 the matter was delayed due to logistical reasons. Due to the multiplicity of parties involved in this application as well as problems relating to my own availability and the availability of counsel, as well as getting all the
during this period. During the period 16 March to 3 April 2007 I was in Europe and could not attend to the matter. There were no other professional staff in the Pretoria office to deal with the matter at that stage.
15.
After my return from Europe, I immediately arranged consultations with counsel for 2 and 3 May 2007, whereafter papers were drafted and finalised by the middle of May 2007.
16.
I respectfully submit that it was prudent to await the outcome of the Matatiele judgment as well as the outcome of the deliberations by the state departments. Considering the public importance of this matter I further respectfully submit that the delays, to the extent that they may be relevant, should not affect the ultimate hearing of the matter.
________________________
DEPONENT
SIGNED AND SWORN TO AT PRETORIA ON THIS DAY OF MAY 2007 THE DEPONENT HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT HE CONSIDERS THE OATH TO BE BINDING ON HIS/HER CONSCIENCE.
_________________________
COMMISSIONER OF OATHS
