ConCour’s judgement on secret ballot pleases the ANC

There is a verbatim reflections and statements that second the reality of the decision undertaken by the United Democratic Movement (UDM) in taking the Motion of no confidence against the President of the Republic of South Africa to constitutional court so as to request that the process should be conducted through a secret ballot.

It is very explicit that the UDM came a realisation that the National Assembly Speaker, Baleka Mbete already failed to make a legitimate ruling in several occasions, in many cases that the speaker presided over to the cases that involved the president, such cases consequently amount to being silenced by the parliament under her supervision. 

The notion of secret ballot tabled by the UDM at first in parliament where the National Assembly Speaker was anticipated to make a legitimate and unbiased ruling that would favour the interest of the people of South Africa and also in respect and defends of the constitution. During the first ruling of this case, Baleka Mbete claimed to have no power to make parliamentary judgement on whether the motion of no confidence in the president could be conducted through a secret ballot or not. Since there are other process and method that could be utilised which include the open ballot system.

 The sadness reality in this matter is that parliamentary speaker seems to be scared and this followed by her words on the 06 April 2017 “I have no power to authorise a vote by a secret ballot against the president.” Although her statement may sound as if she’s not against the notion of secret ballot as stipulated but I am unashamedly persuaded by her past ruling of the cases that she knew exactly that a decision and power to grant a secret ballot to remove the president in the motion of no confidence lies upon her as the parliament speaker.

Now almost majority of South Africans  had been waiting for concourt to pass constitutional judgment that should have been passed by the Parliamentary speaker, the decision made by chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng today, 22 June 2017,  to grant a secret ballot in the motion of no confidence against the president has been remitted to Speaker of Parliament Baleka Mbete. This judgment definitely challenges the Parliamentary Speaker to stand towards adhering to the parliamentary principles in making sure that the request of the UDM is legitimised. To efficiently looking to the position held by Baleka Mbete in the ANC and also being one of the recommended hearsay candidate for 2019 presidential elections. 

This could somehow prompt Baleka Mbete to compromise the sincerity by not grating secret ballot system in the motion of no confidence against the president. To widely my politically point of view on this matter,  the Speak won’t consider secret ballot method or if she does, that means she would be prepared to be degraded in the ANC’s  position that she’s been promised to attain.

To this end, constitutional judgement left the ANC including the president himself smiling at the centre spot, because they themselves knows precisely that Baleka Mbete always defend the president irrespective of whether the president has been found guilty or not, to concretise this phrase, the ANC President Jacob Zuma recently violated the constitution overtly and was found guilty by the concourt but still in parliament he was defended by the Speaker of Parliament. 

I am scared the judgement made by the concourt today will somehow satisfy ANC’s  tripartite alliance well, simple because they themselves are not in support of the President after all the scandals he made which contradict  to their agreement as the ANC’s supporting structures.   

This whole thing of Zuma taken to court it sometimes worth people of South Africa nothing, because people certainly know that whatever kind of cases Zuma is involved such a case won’t go anywhere. The most vital question is, will Baleka Mbete grant a secret ballot in the motion of no confidence against the president? Every concerned compatriot is digesting on that to see if she will be able to fulfil the oath and preserve the status quo so as to serve the people of South Africa as anticipated.

British public relation firm fail its mandate in SA

Pubic relation determines the life and the death of an organisation, it is therefore stands as a pillar towards the profitability and failure of an organisation in terms of preserving its clients’ reputation from the allegations that seeks to put down its client under which public relation company serves. The inability and inconsistency of any public relation towards its clients likely to amount to a negative impact mostly in the political organisations status. 

UK Bell Pottinger Company failed to preserve the status quo of its client and devalued its prestige towards the interest of the world business. Bell Pottinger has been working for the Gupta family since March 2016, in a contract that worth £100, 000 a month, and they eventually contracted officially to the Gupta Family owned Oakbay Investments. The company’s mandate has been to repair and preserve the reputation of the Family from all the allegations that are in connection with the South African president, Jacob Zuma.

It is not amazing to see the UK Bell Pottinger terminated their contract and failing to practise their professional ethics as anticipated. In all companies and political organisations that Bell Pottinger has been contracted, they have never ran their services as appropriately and successfully as expected of them. In recently years Bell Pottinger provided electoral campaign support in Zambia, Kenya, Nigeria and Malawi. 

In 2105, the company worked for the former Nigerian President Goodluck Johathan which demonstrated a massive lead for opposition leader Muhammadu Buhari. Their involvement resulted to Johathan losing the elections, followed 2011 elections where MMD blamed their involvement for his party’s loss. “Our campaign was the well-funded in Zambia’s history, but we lost because of divisions in the party. He (Rupiah Banda) brought in his sons and outsiders from Bell Pottinger who ruin everything.”

It’s very clear that public relations practitioners play a vital role in helping all sorts of campaigns such as presidential election campaigns and also in influencing public’s perception. However, it happened that the poor service of Bell Pottinger Campany resulted to a negative impact politically in South Africa, since its client Oakbay Investments Company which is run by Gupta family, the very same family that is believed to have good relationship with the African National Congress president.

I am quite sure that that Gupta family trusted their PR expertise, and they did not expected them to be terrified and scared of the threats from the masses of South Africa.  Considering professionalism, UK PR Company shouldn’t have pulled out from its client and leave them undefended because of the threats they received from public and other political parties, that shouldn’t have prompted them to relinquish power over their client. But rather to withstand with and fulfil the actual agreement.  

This issue has turned to being a political dilemma in South Africa and has reached a  point where every citizen wants to understand what exactly was the mission of Gupta Family in South Africa, if it was not for business?, because vast complaints has been raised which entail Family linked to corruption in government institutions.

In addition to this, the establishment of deflection campaign built around social media, (twitter) that believes to have been designed to manipulate public opinion in terms of allegations and malicious stories that is regarded to be of a societal concern in South Africa.

 However, all the allegations that include, state interference and capture, illegal appointment of cabinet ministers, these definitely raised the standard of political challenge within the country especially with the opposition parties, began shouting “Gupta must fall’’ every now and then. Despite the experience Bell Pottinger have, they themselves should have handle the pressure and criticism that was levelled towards the Guptas and help rescue Oakbay Investments reputation from its bad image.

Knowing the responsibilities of the PR Company to its client, I therefore, don’t see the necessity of Bell Pottinger pulling back its socks rather than sticking to its objectives as a protector. Despite the fact that Bell pottinger’s founder and other senior employees left the company, that doesn’t necessitate their sincerity towards their client in the business perspective.

The unprofessional conduct of UK PR Company went viral on internet, social media twitter in particular.  Although Bell Pottinger had strong relationship with the President, the campaign of calling for the resignation of President Zuma was obliged to occur, simple because of the scandals he committed and that shouldn’t have backward their interest on the family and its business.

 To this end, the PR CEO, James Henderson “I do not care one bit about international criticism being levelled at Bell Pottinger because of their work for the Guptas”. This sound as a contradiction of their present action. I therefore consider this quote as a controversial statement that is full of confusion.