Thread:

Tomorrow is a critical day for our constitutional democracy: the legal duty of the minister of police & national commissioner of police to arrest Mr Zuma *is not automatically suspended pending what Judge Mnguni says on FRIDAY*. Police MUST obey the existing warrant. Not everything that is your personal idea of common sense, is law. Lots of laws track common sense. But some aspects of law may vary from what your intuitions are. The desire of a police minister to NOT arrest someone, say, until a rescission application is heard, is not lawful.

Meanwhile, the Helen Suzman Foundation has written to the Acting Chief Justice & the State Attorney, arguing that "it is not legally open to [the police minister and national commissioner]" to ignore the constitutional court order to arrest Mr Zuma. 1/4 The HSF argues that not arresting Mr Zuma amounts to treatment that's "manifestly unequal, unlawful, unconstitutional and prejudicial to the public interest and the administration of justice." 2/4

I still can't believe Gwede Mantashe had the audacity to tell the Zondo commission last night that taking a "gift" from Bosasa in the form of security upgrades is fine because he, Gwede, is "not amenable" to being bribed. Can he even hear himself? Let's explain the obvious. (1/6) Getting a "gift", and accepting it willingly, from someone you know to be criminal and looking for tenders from your government, just is what it means to enter into an unethical and fraudulent relationship. It matters not that you are "not amenable" to bribery generally. (2/6)

A few sober thoughts on Jacques Pauw's druken lies:

1. If Jacques wasn't white and male, responses to his drunken ĺies would very likely NOT treat this as a morally or ethically "complex" situation. He'd be judged bluntly for blatantly lying. 2. Jacques enjoys unearned privileges even in this moment. Some people get second chances and are allowed to "make mistakes". For the rest of us, one strike and you're out.

.@PLMyburgh I finally read your @dailymaverick article that seeks to explain fully what you couldn't (necessarily so) explain in a Tweet last week, that in your view govt is tacitly saying BBBEE isn't working. I find large parts of your article unconvincing. I'll explain (1/15) Before I get to substantive disagreements, a few thoughts about your framing & views about this platform, might be useful. Firstly, I find it irritating when articles banalise Twitter criticism by referring vaguely to "Twitter critics". Why not name your peers explicitly?? (2/15)

Now, to tell you why I decided to not renew my talk radio contract for another few years at @Radio702 - A show like mine is very exacting if you take it as seriously as my predecessor @RediTlhabi did who set the gold standard for mid-morning meaning-creating radio in Mzansi... I took my show as seriously as @RediTlhabi did and that has enormous upsides: the opportunity for impact is amazing. The opportunity to shape and influence discourse is amazing, to hold power accountable is amazing, etc.

A final couple of reflections, then disabling Twitter for a few weeks: First, thank you again to everyone who listened to my radio shows on @Radio702 over the years, from Politics and Morality (the first one), then Talk At Nine, then The Eusebius McKaiser Show. THANK YOU... ... We live in a country in which differences run deep. That's neither surprising nor a bad thing. If anything, we should be MORE worried if there isn't a diversity of opinion. When it comes to subjects like law, politics, economics and philosophy, robust debates are key...

1. I did not find the responses of the president to excellent questions from @QaanitahHunter , @AndrewWJHarding & Thulasizwe Simelane, convincing. Let me explain, briefly. (1/9) #Ramaphosa 2. The main statement read out by #Ramaphosa focused narrowly (and for reasons he justified) on his view about the soundness of the report of the @PublicProtector but the journalists' questions invited him to speak more widely about money and politics. He dodged that request.

#DeLille has two legal arguments about remarks she made on The Eusebius McKaiser Show on 26 April.

1. She claims a proper interpretion of the words exchanged between her and the host does not support the @Our_DA interpretion.

2. Part of the DA constitution is unconstitutional. Argument 1: De Lille says the @Our_DA quoted selectively from her interview with Eusebius McKaiser. At the end of said interview, and she cited the transcript, she said the DA is entitled to elect the Mayor and recall the Mayor. It follows she only intended resigning as Mayor.