Dear Jesse Duarte

With the greatest respect your statements on the saga involving the Public Protector are actually embarrassing, considering the leadership role you play in this country.

For instance you are insisting, with great passion. that the Public Protector should not have taken a stance with the President on his failure(s) to comply with her directive "because the matter is with Parliament ... and she is not above Parliament." 

This stance is only explicable on the basis of a fundamental misconception of how our democracy is constitutionally structured. 

In terms of that structure known as the "Doctrine of Separation of Powers" the Office of the Public Protector is in no way circumscribed by what Parliament is doing. 

She has a functional duty to ensure that her Report is complied with ... and that is what she is attempting. 

The debate in Parliament about her Report may well be very interesting ... but is actually IRRELEVANT .. for the very good reason that Parliament has no power to reverse, change or second guess  her Report. The reports by the Minister of Police and the Special Investigations Unit are entirely irrelevant in the scheme of things. 

Only the Superior Courts have power to interfere with her Report. !!!! 

Only the Superior Courts have power to interfere with her Report. !!!!

Parliament actually has a duty to ensure that her Report is complied with.

Ditto ... the so called "leak" of her letter to the President. This is simply a red herring for the simple but good reason that there actually should be NO secrecy about whether or not her Report is being complied with.

Both she and the President are fully accountable to the public who are their employers.
A citizen would be entitled to ask her what she is doing about having her Report complied with. In that event she would be obliged to say that she had written to the President. So this so called "leak" is really a "nothing" issue.

 Justice Malala is quite correct in his particularized observation that Parliament has long since ceased to "do its work" as prescribed by the Constitution. Parliament is constrained to hold the Executive accountable to the general public. From the time of the unlawful disbanding of the Scorpions, against majority public opinion, Parliament has simply acted as a "rubber stamp" of whatever the NEC of the ANC wants.

The harsh reality is that Parliament is now actually a superfluous "blah blah shop". You might as well not have it, because whatever the NEC decides is endorsed by Parliament as a matter of course. When two (2) ANC members of Parliament actually acted in accordance with the Constitution and voted against the unlawful secrecy Bill they were disciplined by the ANC.

So sadly Malala is right in his observation that the ANC cannot complain that the EFF members "disrupted" the workings of Parliament, as there is no "working" actually occurring. By asking the question as to when the President was going to comply with the Report of the Public Protector Julius Malema, whatever we might think of him, was actually attempting to get Parliament to do its "work".

There is actually not one word, syllable or sentence that Malema uttered that was not 100% correct.

 Might I suggest that you ask Prof Pierre De Vos or Prof Shadreck Gutto or even me, to run a workshop for ANC leadership on our Constitution ... as misconceptions about it are actually breathtakingly embarrassing.

This puts our fledgling democracy in very real danger.