Vally Ruling – A case of Judicial Overreach, Paid Judge or Both?

By Pinky Khoabane


A JUDICIARY that has either “overstepped” its mandate or a case of corruption in the judiciary or both? These questions took centre stage following Judge Bashier Vally’s ruling that President Jacob Zuma had to give the Democratic Alliance reasons why he fired former Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and Former Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas. The two were fired in a cabinet reshuffle with several other ministers and deputy ministers several weeks ago.

Since the advent of our democracy we’ve been schooled about our democracy as a constitutional democracy which espoused the doctrine of the separation of powers. This principle was made clear in the ConCourt Nkandla ruling:

“It falls outside the parameters of judicial authority to prescribe to the National Assembly how to scrutinise executive action, what mechanisms to establish and which mandate to give them, for the purpose of holding the executive accountable and fulfilling its oversight role of the executive or organs of state in general.

“The mechanics of how to go about fulfilling these constitutional obligations is a discretionary matter best left to the National Assembly. Ours is a much broader and less intrusive role. And that is to determine whether what the National Assembly did does, in substance and in reality, amount to fulfilment of its constitutional obligations. That is the sum total of the constitutionally permissible judicial enquiry to be embarked upon…

“Courts should not interfere in the processes of other branches of government unless otherwise authorised by the Constitution. It is therefore not for this court to prescribe to Parliament what structures or measures to establish or employ respectively in order to fulfil responsibilities primarily entrusted to it. Courts ought not to blink at the thought of asserting their authority, whenever it is constitutionally permissible to do so, irrespective of the issues or who is involved.

“At the same time, and mindful of the vital strictures of their powers, they must be on high alert against impermissible encroachment on the powers of the other arms of government.”

This ruling has been quoted extensively in assisting us understand this doctrine of the separation of powers. It would be impossible to imagine that Vally doesn’t know it.

We’ve also learnt that the Constitution of the Republic confers upon the President powers to appoint his Cabinet without the obligation to disclose his decision to the opposition.

And the question then becomes why Vally would decide to rule in the manner that he did – asking for the executive to explain the Cabinet reshuffle to the Democratic Alliance (DA).

We’ve come to hear from some law experts that the doctrine of separation of powers is not absolute. We now learn that executive decisions must be rational hence the courts can demand and rule on rationality. This gets very interesting. Why was the rationality in appointing a finance minister with a purportedly pharmaceutical degree not questioned and why  was the decision to appoint the most academically qualified finance minister in the appointment of Des van Rooyen questioned? I say purportedly since the jury is still out on whether Gordhan did get that qualification. This is not the view of the so-called conspiracy writers – Africa Check reported on this: But it is not only Gordhan’s appointment as member of the cabinet that is open for debate and whose rationality or lack thereof could have been questioned – it is every member of a cabinet –  and this is simply because the appointment and firing of cabinet members is a purely political decision.

Vally’s Ruling Subjective and Political

Vally’s ruling has no legal basis and many law experts – including those that hate Zuma – have already made this decision. It is subjective, political and smacks of a corrupt judiciary. There will be those who will call this an attack on our judiciary but the truth is that this judge has joined the opposition in using the courts to play politics. What Vally is doing is to try and assist the Democratic Alliance to establish the reasons behind their chosen man’s sacking. They want to bring the President to talk about the much talked-about intelligence report which he supposedly used to fire Gordhan and Jonas. The question is whether the President’s decision was based on the report as purported in the media?

Should we question Vally’s political background and his links to the South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union (Saccawu) which together with some unions have been calling for Zuma to step down?

Corrupt Judiciary

We also know that the judiciary is corrupt and again this is said by a judge president.

Addressing the Africa Uniting Against Crime anti-corruption conference last year, Judge President of the Gauteng High Court, Dunstan Mlambo said corruption was seeping into government institutions, law enforcement and the courts. “We must prioritise corrupt offences in justice institutions,” he was quoted as saying at the time.

“I don’t want to say that there is no corruption in our ranks. When you look at the evidence presented to you, it comes to me as head of the court. I see these things and I say, I can’t keep quiet.

Social contract between all arms of the state and its citizens

It took an “insignificant” incident to topple Tunisia’s former president, Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali’s regime of 24 years.

It began with an altercation between a policewoman, Faida Hamdy, who confiscated the wares of street vendor Muhammad Al Bouazizi because he was allegedly trading without a licence.

Bouazizi was a 26-year-old unemployed college graduate who had chosen not to join the “army of unemployed youth” and was instead selling fruit on the side of the road.

During the altercation, the policewoman slapped him.

The young man had had enough. He set himself alight in protest.

It took this incident to spark a revolt that would reverberate across the Arab world and topple dictators who had for years trampled on the rights of ordinary citizens.

In the week in which we saw the extent to which the judiciary once again failed its citizens here at home, we ought to heed the lessons of the Tunisian revolution. It will take one “insignificant” event for reasonable citizens of South Africa to declare that enough is enough.

Whether it’s the decision by Judge Colin Lamont to side with racist Afriforum and ban the struggle-song “Dubul’ibhunu” or Vally’s to side with the DA, citizens will rise-up and revolt against any pillar of the state that does not uphold its side of the social contract.



Show More


  1. Can fellow collegues help me on this one. I want to get clarity – maybe Greg can help. The ConCourt allowed the matter of secret vote to be heard while the DA does the same.

    See bellow the abstract from the newspaper
    [Exposed] DA Suspended Councillor For Voting Against The Party Instruction
    Latest News South Africa by citysun – April 18, 20170
    Mmusi Maimane
    Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane
    There was a directive given for the DA’s preferred chairperson Clive Justus and then the councillors voted for another councillor.

    The Democratic Alliance hypocrisy has been exposed after the party called for ANC MPs to vote against their party’s caucus directive on the vote of no confidence against President Zuma.

    Just five months ago the DA fired five councillors in the City of Cape Town for voting against their party’s caucus directive. All five councillors were subjected to internal disciplinary process. They were accused of voting against the party’s preferred candidate for Ward 2 subcouncil chairperson in Kraaifontein.

    The councillors apparently ignored a party directive to vote for Clive Justus and instead voted for Grant Twigg.

    “There was a directive given for the DA’s preferred chairperson Clive Justus and then the councillors voted for another councillor, which is essentially against the directive given to them.” said DA’s Anneke Scheepers.

    The DA is calling for ANC MPs to vote against the position of the ANC when the vote of no confidence is debated in parliament.

  2. Dear PK

    On this very comment section, you allege that we’ve were sold the worst constitution at codesa. If I’m imputing to you positions you don’t hold, then I retract my statement about parliamentary supremacy v constitutional supremacy and I apologise if I’ve misrepresented your views.

    And I’m no expert and by the way I fully agree with the analysis of Prof Pierre de Vos.

    Lol, I can’t help but feel that PK is chasing me away from this community. I shall read the articles emva koko ndivale umlomo.

    1. Dear Mdu

      Asking one to clarify and corroborate their statements isn’t asking one to read and shut up – another incorrect assumption.

      As you correctly state here, there is no evidence that I have ever opined on parliamentary v constitutional supremacy. Being challenged to provide evidence isn’t censorship. I accept your apology.




  3. Dear Jeff

    The President cannot legally challenge the Constitution, only Parliament with the requisite majorities can amend the Constitution.

    What I perceive from the writings of Pinky Khoabane and Mzwanele Manyi and others, is that the choice made at CODESA for a system of Constitutional Supremacy rather than Parliamentary Supremacy was a wrong choice. This is a debate to be had, I myself haven’t made up my mind about which side do I fall on.

    1. Dear Mdu

      I don’t recall any of my writings dealing with Constitutional Supremacy v Parliamentary Supremacy. Perhaps you may lead me to such writings.



    2. Dear Mdu
      I meant to say the President needs to challenge the Order (Judge Vally) to the ConCourt level.

      It is my view that bringing in Constitutional Rationality into Minister/Deputy appointment/dismissal of their own party is prejudice to the majority ruling party as it might a form that dictate in terms of. Who should be cabinet minister or notin contrary to the ruling party`s mandate & Policies.

      If not challenged the Opposition are going to create Anarchy, by exploiting this loophole specific in the area of appointment/dismissal of minister & deputies of the ruling party.

      We will end up with Captured Ministers, working from within for the opposition, just like Pravin & Jonas did.

      I do understand the majority requirement to change/challenge the amendment of the constitution, it is for this reason I called for Unity amoungst all of us previously disadvantaged to vote in order to give the ruling party the two third majority.

      I do appreciate you educating us in this very complex legal issues, which to people like myself seem to be bias laws.

      1. I think seeing as there are no legal experts in our community to challenge Mdu’s legal expertise, why doesn’t Mdu pick up the views of the legal experts out there whose views are that rationality can’t be proven in a political appointment such as that of a Cabinet and dissect them for us.

        It’s pointless arguing with the blind especially when your identity as an expert has not been established.



  4. My assertion that the Constitution was drafted in favor of Government of national Unity,resulting in too much focus on the protection of minorities.

    The DA is now using this to either abuse these protections allowed in the constitution ( Constitutional Rationality)

    The question that arise is what is the real interest of the DA to want Pravin Gordhan & Jonas to be retained in the Finance Ministry. In contrary to the fact that he has failed his duty of protecting the Purse of the RSA. Ref is made to just a few failures:

    # failure to recover billions of recoveries identified on CIEX report & Commission thereof.

    #Failure to curve illicit financial out flow brought to his attention by FIC.

    #Failure to stop the FOREX SCANDAl (currency manipulation by banks) reported to him as early 2009, failure to recover these gains & tax evasions thereof & imposing appropriate penalties.

    #failure to stop corruption & recovery thereof, alleged to be in access of R30billion a year being 20% of the procurement budget.

    # failure to regulate the banking sector in terms of them holding billions of beneficiaries moneys which include SASSA funds, which in terms of laws should be transfered to Guardian Funds, rather then enriching the banks with zero interest to beneficiaries or descendants.

    Cabinet reshuffle & constitutional requirement, I make ref to Chapter 5 & 6

    Chapter 5

    91. (1) The Cabinet consists of the President, as head of the Cabinet, a Deputy President and Ministers.

    (2) The President appoints the Deputy President and Ministers, assigns their powers and functions, and may dismiss them.

    Chapter 6
    92.Accountability of Ministers and Cabinet

    (1) A Minister shall be accountable individually both to the President and to Parliament for the administration of the portfolio entrusted to him or her, and all members of the Cabinet shall correspondingly be accountable collectively for the performance of the functions of the national government and for its policies.

    (2) A Minister shall administer his or her portfolio in accordance with the policy determined by the Cabinet.

    (3) If a Minister fails to administer his or her portfolio in accordance with the policy of the Cabinet, the President may require the Minister concerned to bring the administration of the portfolio into conformity with such policy.

    (4) If the Minister concerned fails to comply with a requirement of the President under subsection (3), the President may, after consultation with the Minister,if the Minister is not a member of the President’s party, or is not the leader of a participating party, also after consultation with the leader of such Minister’s party, remove the Minister from office.

  5. PK

    The judicial system is like a WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PSYCHOPATHS TAKE POWER ?
    ” Pathocracy is a system of government wherein a small pathological minority takes control over a society of normal people.”

    Andrew M. Lobaczewski in his book “Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes”

    “Psychopaths do well in politics. They are ideally suited to the ruthless, competitive, self-promoting and manipulative power games that dominate party politics.”

    Stuart Hertzog

    “The society of experts will control propaganda and education. It will teach loyalty to the world government, and make nationalism high treason. The government, being an oligarchy, will instill submissiveness into the great bulk of the population It is possible that it may invent ingenious ways of concealing its own power, leaving the forms of democracy intact, and allowing the plutocrats or politicians to imagine that they are cleverly controlling these forms whatever the outward forms may be, all real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation

    1. Dear Rex

      You have given us a number of excerpts from various books – thank you.



  6. “From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.”

    William Blum

    “In politics the professional psychopath’s ruthlessness and cunning gives them a distinct advantage over any non-psychopath rival. They make charismatic leaders, manipulating and brainwashing the naive, vulnerable, uneducated, or mentally weak. Mastery of lying allows them to make whatever outrageous campaign promises straight faced with, of course, no intention of keeping any of them. A life spent faking being human give them the ability to assume the roles of virtuous public servant, the perfect father, husband, advisor, mentor, and everyman. In addition when things get rough they have no inhibitions in playing dirty and readily resort to murder, assassination, persecution, war and genocide.”

    Stefan H. Verstappen

    “Why do we continue to allow leaders who are motivated by self-interest, or by their own psychological issues from the past, to fan bitterness and political crisis into armed confrontation and war?”

    Martha Stout

  7. Dear PK

    Yes you never claimed to be a lawyer, but you made a legal claim in your article. That claim is that judge Vally’s decision has no legal basis, this claim is false and misleading.

    In my previous post, I painstakingly set out the legal basis for the judgment. So it’s incorrect to say the judgment is legally unjustified.

    Dear Jeff

    The Labour Relations Act is not applicable here, the decision is based on the Constitution. Rationality is a constitutional principle and it applies to any appointment/dismissal the President makes.

    1. Dear Mdu
      Thanks for the clarity on the non applicable of LRA Act.
      The President need to challenge the Constitution.
      What’s not going to happen is the reversal of the reshuffle made, that will remain no matter what, both Pravin Gordhan & Mcebisi Jonas were not fit no hold their position,theybecame proctectors of the WMC banks which are used by WMC entities for illicit financial outflow, to sabotage our economy. That’s one of the many rationalitiesthe President can choose to use if he so wishes.
      The final CIEX report is due for release soon.Then all those that having been alleging that the President wants to capture treasury will realise that the President has infact saved this country from the biggest sabotage financial/economic terrorism of the looting by Broederbond prior 94 which was imposed on treasury to gain control thereof.

  8. Dear PK, Thanks for another great piece of work and forever taking your time to educate and inform us about these stories that don’t get published in mainstream media. Ever since I started following you on Twitter and this website my knowledge on political issues in SA has improved a lot.

    Coming back to this issue, One thing clear to me is that DA is rulling this country via courts and Chapter 9 institutions and thanks God that the new PP (Busisiwe Mkhwebane) is not very popular with the DA and that is a great sign.

    1. Nkosi, indeed thank God for the new PP (Busisiwe Mkhwebane) there is a huge suprise coming out soon on the CIEX report. Absa has to pay back the R2,3 bn. This figure is not based on the lifeboat loan, but gains from the Govt bonds which were additional to the loan of which Chris Stals was able to come up with a proof of payment of the loan.(Questionable, but be as it may) I brought in the issue of bonds into this investigation, after it was excluded from the investigationof both Judge Heath & Judge Davies.I further raised other bonds mentioned on this report with a total imposed liability to Govt with the amount of R1,2 trillion which were also excluded from the investigation.The chekmate to the WMC in the final report recommendation of the new PP is going to be:
      President to institute a full commission of inquiry into the apartheid looting must be opened & all monies identified by the CIEX report must be recovered. This report is due to be released before month end latest mid june. This will be a game changer! Watch this space.
      This is first hand confidential information for confirmation contact Tebogo Kekane (chief investgating officer assigned for complexion of report.)

  9. As POPCRU members we had resolved that we need to transform the judiciary in South African. I think we need not to waste any more time before things get out of hand.

    1. Dear Mofokeng

      Thank you so much for joining our UnCensored Community. Its become clear that our judiciary has been captured. If this ruling goes ahead on appeal, we will take to the streets. We never voted for opposition to explain itself to opposition.
      We’ve been sold the worst Constitution and we’ve sat here and accepted it is what the liberation movement that participated in CODESA brought us.



  10. Its either the Constitution is misinterpreted by the judiciary or simply our judiciary does nor recognize our hard fought Democracy.

    Firstly the judiciary needs to understand the definition of Democracy & the process thereof.

    Vote= Democratically Elected Govt – parliament is formed. therefore the issue of appointing members to serve in the Executive is a Government (ruling party) function.

    The assertion that this function falls within Executive Members’ Ethics Act [No. 82 of 1998] is totally incorrect in my view, hence the so called irrational in terms of the reasons into the reshuffle does not apply.

    What came first chicken or egg? Should we now put the horse before the cart when it suits us and call it Democracy?

  11. Interesting column, a number of flaws in legal reasoning though.

    As you correctly quote from the Nkandla case, interference by courts in the business of the other branches of state (the executive and legislature) is only permissible if authorized by law. The question then becomes, is the evaluation of the president’s power to appoint or to dismiss ministers authorized by law?

    The answer to this question is yes, it’s yes because, according to our constitutional jurisprudence every exercise of public power must be lawful. The power of the president to appoint ministers is a public power, all powers emanating from the constitution and/or legislation are public powers.

    For the exercise of a public power to be lawful, it must at a minimum be rational. Rationality as used here, is a legal term, it means at a minimum, there needs to be a connection between the reasons given for the exercise of the power and the purpose of the power.

    Thus, reasons are critical in determining rationality, hence the order by judge Vally. Without knowing the reasons underlying the president’s decision, its rationality cannot be tested, if its rationality cannot be tested it means its lawfulness cannot be evaluated and this would undermine the constitutional principle that “All exercises of public power must be lawful.”

    Once one understands this principle, there’s nothing extra-ordinary or controversial with the judge Vally’s order. Furthermore, if the President gives the following reason (which I’d advise him to give if I was his lawyer), that he has lost confidence in the Finance minister and his deputy, such a reason would be perfectly rational (in the legal sense of the term). The dismissal of a minister/s which the president has lost confidence is rationally related to the purpose of power to appoint/dismiss ministers, that purpose is the selection of a cabinet that the president is confident will implement his/her policies. If the President gives such a reason and the court accepts it, then his decision is rational and the DA’s case will be dismissed.

    PS I loved your reporting on the Vodacom fellow.


    1. Dear Mdu

      Thanks for joining UnCensored community. Thanks again for your kind words in acknowledging my work in bringing the story of a black man who grew up on a farm and invented one of the worlds most value-add mobile products – Please Call Me. The “fellow” in question is Nkosana Makate – let’s stop being so Westernised about our way of thinking – we call each other by name, by clan – “fellow” my foot.
      My job is to write stories which commercial media ignore and I’ve written many stories which would never have made it on the headlines of commercial media headlines. I have many.
      I have never claimed to be a lawyer, in fact, apart from making-it to University at the age of 15, I have very little claim to much except my commitment to justice.That is one characteristic of who I am and to which I am so grateful my parents gave me – generosity and quest for justice.
      I earn nothing for what I do but I do it in the quest that we get to know every aspect of a story.
      Thanks for your contribution

    2. Hi Mdu
      I totally agree with your explanation

      The law stipulates nothing about the process of forming a government. The process takes a different course each time, though certain procedures are always followed.

      Hence the question still arise, in term of how a Democratically Elected Government is formed:
      #Elections/ Voting =Ruling Party = Forms Government, then those selected become sworn Executives (Public Servant).

      Why then rationality does not apply to the appointment of those selected & yet now we must accept that it applies on the removal?

      Political rules for forming a government
      The Constitution stipulates no rules for forming governments. The formation procedure is based mainly on unwritten law and the rules of the political party processes.

      The Constitution addresses only the beginning and the end of the formation process: the resignation of the old government and the appointment of the new one.

      1. It is my view that the appointment and dismissal of Minister was accepted to be outside the rule of law of rationality as a Government Prerogative through its leader, and that had to be provided in the Constitution as such.

        The danger of accepting this argument and bowing to it is:

        The opposition parties will use this rationality of law to oppose to new ministers appointments based on qualification requirements for portfolios they hold. They will further challenge the qualification of those cabinet ministers in power.

        This will result in total anarchy in this country.

        It is therefore my strong submission that the President does not give the DA any reasons or justification for the re shuttle other that is was a political decision.

        As it has now become a legal matter, he needs to appeal the Order/Judgment.

        If that fails we the Voters that put the ruling party there with a clear mandate will mobilized in a way never seen in this country.

        We are sick and tired of being provoked by the white minority parties, that believe we should remain slaves and me content with an empty shell of exclusion in the economy..

        The DA is declaring war that they will never be able to handle.

        While we are a forgiving nation that must not be taken for granted, there is a beginning and the end in everything.

        1. The ruling of Judge Vally in terms of him determining rationality he clearly relied on Labour Relations Act (LRA). ( basic condition of employment)

          My assertion is based on the type of evidence he requested from the President

          Can some of our readers who are law experts please clarify if Politician are included in the protection of this law, as my understanding is not. If yes then we headoing towards the biggest labour dispute against government by ex politicians including but not limited to Cde Mbeki

          1. If my argument are not valid, them we all, as people of color in this country that fought for charges, we must come to terms that we were totally sold out by our leaders who negotiated this Constitution.

            This constitution was designed to protect the interest of the minority groups/ parties, it was designed for Govt of Unity (Multi Party Coalition) & not for majority rule.

            Too much of emphasis was put on Govt of Unity by our Icon UTata Mandela.

            This has come back to hauth us, and it calls for unity amongst all of us, to stand together in voting for the ruling party and ensuring that a two third majority is obtained to change this Constitution & to ensure that the new leadership to be elected are more sympathetic towards the majority poor peoples needs rather the previous minority oppressors who continue to exploit us and our country`s economy.

            After 23 years It is indeed time for Women of this country to take over the leadership of our Liberation Movement as they more than any other know the pain of poverty & slavery, & they will take us to the promised land.

  12. Why the DA does not file at South Gauteng High court they play only at t Pretoria and Cape town.
    This constitution is not good hence they can rule via concourts or courts.

    1. Dear Rex, Welcome to our UnCensored Platform. What this judge must be congratulated for is opening the debate of an untransformed judiciary. WE have always suspected why DA cases are in the North Gauteng High Court but could never voice our suspicions.

      So in other words – Salute Vally Salute. We can now speak openly about the bias in our judiciary.



      1. What about the Judiciary?
        Last month Justine Lewis informed this very committee that even the courts are captured by WMC. Lewis presented shocking evidence that Johann Rupert’s influence goes up to the office of the highest court in the land. He told this committee that in,
        “2016 The Hawks judge approved an investigation especially with regard to the following concerns;
        i) The allegations of extortion against the wheel chair bound widow by her SA bank in charge of protecting her pension left in trust for her late husband
        ii) The alleged use of bribery of court officials
        iii) The permission for access to evidence from the office of the chief justice re allegations of trial fixing, and the alleged protection of the banks and businessman Johan Rupert by the same office for obstructing the course of justice by refusing this access”
        There are ways to silence the democratic elected government by this people watch the lots of foundations that have crop up and goes to court when ever the president takes decisions.
        Where is Helen Suzman ,Fw De klerk,Corruption Watch,Mbeki Foundation,Khatrada Foundation and all those who attends the dialog on friday why Mashaba dismissed the MMC Infrastructure in Joburg did no give reasons to fire him?
        i dont trust this judiciary as it supports the Coup leaders like Holomisa and the group who take the secret voting to con-court?

        1. Hi Rex

          I will by tomorrow transcribe a shocking indictment of the judiciary.

          Lewis’s story was published here.




        “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live inBut, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”

        Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain, speaking at the Commencement Address of the University of Texas in 1927

        “When the US government needs money, it either collects it in taxes or it issues bonds. These bonds are sold to the Federal Reserve , and the Fed, in turn, makes book entry deposits. This “debt money” created out of thin air is then made available to the US government. But if the US government can issue Treasury bills, notes and bonds, it can also issue currency, as it did prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve. If the U.S. issued its own money, that money could cover all its expenses, and the income tax wouldn’t be needed. So what’s the objection to getting rid of the Fed and letting the US government issue its own currency? Easy, it cuts out the bankers and it eliminates the income tax.”

        Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letter, April 2005

        ” America is the largest debtor nation, and at the same time it is the world’s creditor. “Creating money out of thin air”, while at the same time imposing the U.S. dollar as a global currency constitutes the ultimate instrument of conquest and imperial domination.
        The U.S. monetary system is supported by the most powerful military power on earth. The dollar is backed by U.S. military might, which constitutes a means for displacing national currencies and imposing the U.S. dollar. In this regard, the Federal Reserve’s overwhelming powers of money creation constitute an essential lever of an imperial monetary agenda.
        … The Western banking system controls a worldwide electronic banking network. The control of money creation at a world level constitutes the ultimate instrument of economic and social domination. The creation of fiat money provides a command over the real economies of countries worldwide. The ultimate lever of the U.S.-NATO imperial design is to override and destroy national currencies.”

        Michel Chossudovsky in the book “The Global Economic Crisis”

        “Every country suspended the gold standard at the outbreak of the war [WWI]… This removed the automatic limitation on the supply of paper money. Then each country proceeded to pay for the war by borrowing from the banks. The banks created the money which they then lent by merely giving the Government a deposit of any size against which the Government could draw checks. The banks were no longer limited in the amount of credit they could create because they no longer had to pay out gold for checks on demand. Thus the creation of money in the form of credit by the banks was limited only by the demands of its borrowers.”

        Carroll Quigley, historian and Georgetown University professor, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”

        “The Federal Reserve holds a monopoly on the issuance of currency in the USA. In essence, this is the power to borrow an infinite amount of money at 0%. The dollar bill in your pocket is a 0% loan to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve then uses these 0% loans to purchase income-producing assets.”

        Jeff Chen

        “The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a coup that authorized a private cartel to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government with interest and control the national money supply, expanding or contracting it at will.”
        Nikki Alexander, 2009

        “A cabal of English aristocrats and bankers created the Bank of England in 1694. King William, in need of money to fight a certain war, money which he couldn’t raise by taxing or borrowing, granted a charter to a favored group of intriguers to form a bank which would be given a monopoly on issuing English bank notes, i.e., English paper money, which would be created out of nothing and credited to the government in return for a government IOU, the only “backing” that would be required. The government would pay interest on this “loan,” making it look legitimate to the public, but the bank’s even larger payback was that it was empowered to make additional commercial loans, at interest, using the same government IOU’s as “backing,” just as though the IOU’s were hard, metallic gold. The banks, by receiving interest on money they could create and lend out at will, were thereby going to get rich, the king was going to be able to raise any amount of “money” he wanted, and the public, remaining ignorant of what was going on, was going to pay for it all by having their savings devalued by the expansion of the currency.”

        G. Edward Griffin in his book “The Creature from Jekyll Island”

        “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

        Thomas Jefferson

        “The founding of the Bank of England by William Paterson and his friends in 1694 is one of the great dates in world history. For generations men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. Today we call such pieces of paper gold certificates. Such a certificate entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands. It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to he presented for payment; accordingly, the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing, a volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment of demands against them. Such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes. In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing.”

        Carroll Quigley, historian and Georgetown University professor, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”

        “The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government bonds from the United States Treasury, lending money into circulation at interest, by bookkeeping entries… Where does the Federal Reserve system get the money with which to create Bank Reserves? Answer. It doesn’t get the money, it creates it. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money. The Federal Reserve is a total moneymaking machine.”

        Congressman Wright Patman House Banking and Currency Committee, 1964

        “The reason why the British abolished the right of the American Colonies to create and issue their own money is simple: the bankers did not want the Colonists to be able to trade among themselves without paying tribute to them… The objective was clear: by forcing Americans to pay interest, the European money changers wanted to enslave the Colonies in a mountain of debt.
        … We are paying the International Bankers hundreds of millions of dollars each year in interest on our National Debt. This money (or credit) was created by the bankers out of nothing – and loaned to us at a high rate of interest.”

        Des Griffin in his book “Fourth Reich of the Rich

        “When the federal government needs more money, the Federal Reserve does not merely create and print it as it would do were it a government agency. No, the Federal Reserve creates it as a loan and charges the government interest on it.”
        U.S. State Senator Jack Metcalf (R-WA)

        “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
        Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

        “The ultimate control over the world economy is achieved through command over money creation: through fiat money, by creating money from nothing. The “long war” is intended to instate the hegemony of the U.S.-EU financial system as well as the contours of “world government”.”
        Michel Chossudovsky

        “When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”
        “Putting it simply” Boston Federal Reserve Bank

        “If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.”
        Robert H. Hemphill, former Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga., 1935

        “[The] creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. The same thing could be done in another way, not by note-issuing banks but by deposit banks. Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to third persons were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money (gold, certificates, and notes) no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans, and if these loans were made by creating a deposit for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such “created deposits” or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value. Such created deposits also were a creation of money out of nothing.”
        Carroll Quigley, historian and Georgetown University professor, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”

        “If one creates money out of thin air and then passes on what did not exist before and charges interest on it and uses physical assets as collateral, then that is in reality a model for expropriation.”
        Franz Hormann, University of Vienna

        “The founding of the Bank of England by William Paterson and his friends in 1694 is one of the great dates in world history. For generations men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. Today we call such pieces of paper gold certificates. Such a certificate entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands. It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to he presented for payment; accordingly, the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing, a volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment of demands against them. Such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes. In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing.”
        Carroll Quigley, historian and Georgetown University professor, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”

        “In Pennsylvania in the first half of the 18th century, the provincial government not only printed its own money but owned its own bank. Colonial scrip was printed and lent to farmers at 5% interest, and this money recycled back to the government as it was repaid. The money went out and came back in a circular flow, preventing inflation… The Bank of Pennsylvania issued its fiat currency as loans for domestic use, loans on which not only the principal but the interest came back to the government. Since the provincial government had the power to issue the local scrip, it could issue some extra to meet its expenses; and this money filtered through the economy to provide the additional sums needed to cover the interest on the loans. During the time this provincial system was in place, the Pennsylvania colonists paid no taxes, there was no government debt, and price inflation did not result.”
        Ellen Brown

        “The counterfeit option is available only if a country happens to be in the unique position of having its currency accepted as the medium of international trade, as has been the case for the United States. In that event it is possible to create money out of nothing, and other nations have no choice but to accept it… The result is that America has continued to finance its trade deficit with fiat money – counterfeit, if you will – a feat which no other nation in the world could hope to accomplish.”

        G. Edward Griffin

        “During the Civil War, [President] Lincoln issued Greenbacks. That was a form of fiat money in an emergency situation, but what it did, partially at least, was to take the control of the U.S. debt temporarily out of the hands of London and New York banks. That displeased London to an extraordinary extent.”

        F. William Engdahl, 2011

        “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

        Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company

        “The organizational structure for creating means of payment out of nothing, we call credit.”
        Carroll Quigley, historian and Georgetown University professor, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”

        “The U.S. bailout shows that countries do not need to borrow credit from foreign banks at all. The government could have created its own money and credit system rather than leaving foreign creditors to accrue interest charges that now represent a permanent and seemingly irreversible balance-of-payments drain. The United States has shown that any country can monetize its own credit, at least domestic credit.”
        Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers, 2008

        “The Western banking system controls a worldwide electronic banking network. The control of money creation at a world level constitutes the ultimate instrument of economic and social domination. The creation of fiat money provides a command over the real economies of countries worldwide. The ultimate lever of the U.S.-NATO imperial design is to override and destroy national currencies.”
        Michel Chossudovsky

  13. I don’t think the DA should even contest the elections, they are already co-governing through the courts as can be seen in many court judgements including this one in which they have sought to overrule executive decisions they are not happy about.

    1. Hahaha, Mandla. The DA “believes” in our Constitution. They formulated it and know the loop holes. Of course they must contest elections to be seen to be truly democratic but when they lose, they know the courts are an avenue.



    1. Dear Jannie

      Let’s hope so but ultimately, a debate must now be held about our judiciary. Long overdue but it must now be discussed. Replacing apartheid judges with post 1994 candidates istnt transforming the judiciary.

      Kindest and a great weekend to you..


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
%d bloggers like this: