DA’s federal legal commission registrar explains
Decision makers turn to O!O first for what’s really happening in Eden
Drewan Baird. Oudtshoorn. 31 August 2013. 06h30. The conversation with Debbie Schafer (see below) continued yesterday after I objected to the incomplete answer on Councillor Pierre Nel’s suspension.
I wrote: “Nah, Debbie, yesterday you berated me for not reporting fully on the proceedings in the chambers of Rogers J Tuesday… Now you conveniently ignore the question: when will Nel be restored to full membership, or cut?”
Schafer’s compelling reply?
“I did answer – when Fedex makes a decision.”
O, please, Debbie!
On Thursday Schafer complained bitterly that I did not fully report the order made by Judge Owen Rogers.
I did not report fully because the issue was really this: The DA wanted to force a Council Meeting for August 29, this Thursday last; the Speaker wanted the meeting for September 4, this Wednesday next. The result of the action was that a meeting was ordered for September 4, and not for August 29. This arrangement was already in place before the DA approached the High Court on Tuesday. For those still failing, or refusing, to get it: The DA did not get what it wanted; the Speaker did get what he wanted. Period.
Obviously I am unimpressed with Schafer’s tap-dancing around my question about Nel’s suspension!
I shot back: “This is luverly! And when, pray, is that decision expected? When it is made, I guess?”
Schafer owes me another explanation, about the continuing embarrassment of Wessie van der Westhuizen’s continued presence in the DA.
This is my unanswered query:
I note that adv Shaheed Patel rushed to Van der Westhuizen’s aid yesterday in the Eden disciplinary.
As if looking upon the countenance of his messiah, was the expression on the accused’s face when Patel arrived.
Apparently justifiable was the elation as the xyresic Patel seems to be poised to waste Eden in some legal labyrinth reminiscent of the Artificer’s best at Knossos.
I earlier noted with consternation that the proposed “settlement” – what IS it with settlements of late!? – of the previous attempt at a hearing vacated all the ENS related charges!
Ye gods and faeries, Debbie, whatever happened to the legendary DA doctrine of soaped government?
The DA: Clean Government.
And the Pope, did you not know my longsuffering readers, is a Seventh Day Adventist.
Advertise on O!O – click here for details
Drewan Baird. Oudtshoorn. 30 August 2013. 13h00. The DA’s Registrar: Federal Legal Commission (and Shadow Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; and Constituency Head for Cape Metro wards 65, 66, 67, and 73; and a member of the Magistrates Commission; and a parliamentary whip) Debbie Schafer explained the current status of alderman Pierre Nel in answer to my query:
I wonder if I might impose for some information on the membership suspension of Oudtshoorn councillor Pierre Nel?
I was told by the DA election manager at the time of the suspension that the suspension barred Nel from party project participation, but conveniently had no effect on his councillor status.
Sort of ‘not good enough for the DA’, but ‘quite passable for Oudtshoorn’, don’t you think?
Is Nel’s DA membership still suspended?
How will the suspension be exhausted, either by rescission or expulsion?
When will exhaustion be completed?
Is Nel in limbo to allow the best probability of a majority in the Oudtshoorn Council before exhaustion?
Schafer says… “Nel’s suspension is still in place at this stage until any decision is taken by FedEx to the contrary. There is nothing ‘convenient’ about it – the legislation provides that a person only loses their status as councillor if they lose their membership. No provision is made for party suspensions to affect their status as councillors, so we do not have a choice in the matter.”
But this is not a complete answer to my questions, is it now?
Is not the point to attempt to determine when this ‘process’ will come to fruition?
Nel had his membership ‘suspended’ some three months ago, after the exposure of the fraudulent ‘settlement’ in the Nel v Oudtshoorn Municipality matter.
Ben van Wyk also had his membership suspended at the time, but a decision on his fate was quick in the making: excused for naïveté; exculpation by stupidity – conned into conning.
Why is the Nel decision taking so long?
Surely, if Van Wyk was suspended (not expelled, mind – something quite different in DA Speak) and restored to full membership within days, for being conned into conning the ratepayers; Nel, if he failed to prove stupidity, which failure is evidenced by his continued suspension, should already have had his fate determined by a well oiled federal machine!?
It’s been 3 months, for crying in a bucket, and justice delayed is justice denied and all that.
Nah. I don’t buy this. Nel remains on political life support only to make up the numbers on September 4. Then the machines will be switched off.
Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beeeeeeeeeeeep.
The DA is conning Oudtshoorn.
Like it did on May 31.
Like it did on June 25.
Like it did on August 27.
Are we looking at a by-election in ward 2?
But only after a DA take-over, or, rather, as we all tend to forget, a DA and one other take-over (the DA only has 12 seats in a 25 seat Council) by the scheme of things.
Pierre Nel an independent?
And yet another power struggle in Council?
Yet, there is so much water running into the sea at this time.
So much water…