LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Judicial delays highlight need for effective plea bargain system

In the Western Cape there were two recent cases where the accused spent six years awaiting trial. That is 12 times longer than the dreaded 180 days of detention without trial during apartheid.

On average, the court rolls are probably four years behind schedule. Criminal cases take four weeks to a year to completion, clogging up the system and occupying the judge, court personnel and the court room.

Yet the solution is simple and widely followed in other jurisdictions: plea bargains. It takes about two days to reach a plea bargain agreement between the state and defence counsel, and an hour in court to finalise it.

As an inducement for settlement, legal aid could pay the defence counsel half of what they would have earned if the case had proceeded, saving the state millions of rand in the process.

The state did make a push for more plea bargains, but the process has been abused by some prosecutors. As a result, the rule was instituted that prosecutors must first refer back to the office before the plea bargain can be finalised.

In practice, the prosecutors pretend they have full authority to act on behalf of the state and a settlement is reached between the parties, only to hear from the office that the sentence they want is, in effect, what they would have received in court.

That is not a plea bargain; it is an abuse of the system, with the prosecutor negotiating in bad faith. Proper training of prosecutors in plea bargains could provide relief here.

The other problem is judges are entitled to adjust a sentence if they think it does not fit, and if it is adjusted to what the court would have handed down, disregarding the plea bargain agreement, the effect is that the accused is ambushed and the word spreads in prisons not to make use of plea bargains.

Jan Buurman

Cape Town

Disputes over JSE ownership distract from employment crisis

Ghaleb Cachalia’s most recent column refers (“Scorecards mask real transformation shortfalls,” June 15).

I take his point that (broadly black) ownership of South African listed shares is distorted in most of the publicly available measurements of that statistic. But I question the implicit conclusion that, because the inclusion of the Public Investment Corporation’s pension fund holdings in those shares is classified as “black” by some of these measurements, the “white” proportion of those holdings is automatically greater by the same amount.

Surely if the underlying black beneficiaries of the PIC’s holdings are to be ignored in classifying their racial ownership, that statistic must be removed from the denominator and the numerator in calculating overall racial ownership proportions. And by parity of reasoning, the same must surely be true of shares held by all of South Africa’s private pension and investment funds.

But all of this is a distraction that obscures the real issue: how do we get black people employed and the economy going again? Arguing about ownership of the JSE is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

David Clegg

Cape Town and Kelowna, Canada

Cape Union Mart case tests boundaries of free speech and accountability

The legal dispute before the Western Cape High Court involving Cape Union Mart extends far beyond a disagreement over international politics (“Where is the support for Cape Union Mart?”, June 17).

At its heart lies a question that should concern every South African investor, employer and employee: can businesses and business leaders operate without being subjected to campaigns built on misinformation, intimidation and reputational harm?

South Africa’s constitution rightly protects freedom of expression and the right to protest. These rights are essential in any democracy. However, no constitutional right exists to spread unsubstantiated allegations that damage the reputation of individuals or businesses. Free speech is not a licence to make serious accusations without evidence, particularly when those accusations can cause measurable economic harm to other citizens.

Cape Union Mart has approached the courts seeking protection against allegations that it and its executive chair, Philip Krawitz, have funded genocide, supported military violence or bear responsibility for the deaths of Palestinian children. These are exceptionally serious claims. If evidence exists, it should be presented. If it does not, the law must provide recourse for those whose reputations and businesses are placed at risk.

This case is about more than just a retailer. It is about whether South Africa remains a country governed by facts, evidence and the rule of law, or whether allegations repeated often enough can be used to intimidate businesses, damage livelihoods and undermine confidence in the very institutions that create jobs and drive economic growth.

Daniel Jacobi

SA Friends of Israel

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.