WHAT ARE STALINGRAD TACTICS WHEN THE JUDIARY IS COMPROMISED?

Former South African President, Mr. Jacob Zuma, has rightly or wrongly credited for using a number of legal challenges available to him in terms of the constitution to allegedly avoid accountability.

The Stalingrad legal defense is a strategy that has now been imported into the legal language to describe the characteristics of a defendant to take every point of law and rules to protect his constitutional rights yet to many, this kind of strategy benefits from the protection of the law is frowned upon as it is construed as a deliberate and wilful weapon to wear down the plaintiff or legal proceedings by appealing every ruling that is unfavorable to the defendant and using whatever other means possible to delay proceedings.

This term finds its origin in the World War II-era Battle of Stalingrad^] where the Soviet Union won the battle by wearing down attacking German forces over the course of 5 months.

To the extent that the judicial actors act independently and impartially, the default position would be to ask who suffers prejudice is if an aggrieved party seeks justice within the four corners of the court system.

Should judges anticipate judicial outcomes or be in a hurry to limit the right to a fair trial by supporting propositions that create dangerous precedents of allowing judges to determine disputes based on public opinion or partially on the basis of short-circuiting the limitations that the observance of the rule of law imposes on all persons who perform administrative and adjudicative roles?

The constitution limits the use of the word criminal to only tried and convicted persons yet a frequently asked question is: “What role can judges play in preventing the Stalingrad legal strategy of criminals bent on manipulating the system?”

Former President Zuma’s advocate, Kemp J Kemp, said; “This is not a battle where you send a champion out and have a little fight and that’s it – this is more like we will fight them in every room, in every street, in every house.”

In a number of cases, the SA courts have expressed their frustration with these tactics.

A new approach developing on the part of the courts in civil matters is to enter into an enquiry on whether the party litigating at the state’s expense should pay costs personally.

The Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) is an initiative powered by BOAF-10,000POL project to promote, ignite and inspire the building of an open, transparent, and accountable constitutional democracy.

The JUROL Director of Public Policy, Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri said: “We exist solely to raise public awareness of the centrality of active citizenship in shaping and determining the personality and character of the justice administration system and architecture lest judges become a law unto themselves to allow them to operate like a mafia under the guise of pretending to be custodians of the rule of law.”

Set out below is Mr. Frederick Kyle, a member of the 10,000POL initiative who is an attorney based in Finland, had to say in anticipation of former President Zuma’s trial that is scheduled to commence on Monday, 11 April 2022.

[4/8, 5:21 AM] Rikki: Great explanation on Stallingrad

[4/8, 5:25 AM] Rikki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_legal_defense

[4/8, 5:26 AM] Rikki: Daly would enjoy this as it mentions his client in the use of the defence

[4/8, 5:26 AM] Rikki: Notably nobody says the defence is illegal or wrong in any sense

[4/8, 5:51 AM] Rikki: It is a sad day for South Africa indeed when personal freedoms and rights for which so much have been sacrificed have to be given up simply because it irritates a presiding officer. Judges are entrusted to uphold these freedoms and rights. If these freedoms and rights irritate a Judge he should out of respect for the Constitution and the independence of the Judiciary remove himself from the case.

[4/8, 5:57 AM] Rikki: If any move that is seen to delay justice is unlawful it must be identified as such. It is not good enough to use a general term to imply unlawfulness. Terms like technical or Stalingrad has no place in a Constitutional democracy. If the legislature did not intend to give people certain rights, they would have removed them. If the Courts are not happy with how its own rules are used, they should change them. The Court can’t say that the rule may be used by one litigant and not the other. But for as long as the rules and laws are what they are, it can never be said that exercising is unlawful or some tactic.

[4/8, 5:59 AM] Rikki: The mere fact that the presiding Judge uses the word Stalingrad implies that he sees these moves as being a waste of time and thus, implies that he has already decided what justice will be in the matter at hand. This prejudgment is unlawful not the exercising of rights and freedoms.

[4/8, 6:00 AM] Rikki: Please send the above messages to Dali Mpofu as my contribution to the cause South Africa as a country has adopted a constitution in 1996 which is the Supreme Law. This means that the constitution has the highest power in the country and no one is above the law. The Constitution obliges the South African Government to protect and promote the rights of every individual. It stipulates particularly under the bill of rights that:

Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.