Hi Goalie: am having trouble substantiating anything Infoman/Gull have posted.
(By the way, Goalie, you, Cruncher, ValuePro et al. deserve congratulations too for your efforts to figure out the wheat from the chaff here, like I am.)
Hi Goalie, Cruncher, Vaughn, Valuepro, John Molson, et al. Well, I've had a long hard look at the information posted by Infoman and Gull, and I'm having real difficulty substantiating their information. A few comments here for you and everyone else wrt that information. There's much more that can be addressed, but all in good time.
Gull and Infoman seem to have difficulty understanding that shareholders talk to companies, sometimes on a daily basis, to figure out what's going on, and take the trouble to check information for themselves, whether that information emanates from the company they've invested in or from competitors. Phoning corporate investor relations departments, DME, consulates, the press, De Beers, and other mining companies on a daily basis is de rigeur if you really want to stay on top of your investments. I guess it's time to bring the following up: open, complete and honest dissemination of information in days long
since gone by in South Africa was simply not the norm. In that (outdated) context of restricted information, perhaps I can understand why "Infoman" and "Gull" have a hard time recognizing that anyone like Valuepro (just to pick an example) and me *have* done their research thoroughly, *do* have legitimate access to information as
shareholders, and *are* going to dig for information, and dig hard, when they need it. Controversial information released about a company is *bound* to be looked up by shareholders, the press, etc. etc. When we discover that it's unsubstantiated, it simply reflects on the person like "Infoman" who made the unsubstantiated claims. For shareholders in South African companies, there's a new spirit of openness, which goes up to, and stems from, the political openness that has permeated the country since 1994.
Thanks to the poster on this group who pointed out that Dr. Maduna's speech is freely available from the South African Government. It is an outstanding, resonant, fair-minded speech. Despite this context of openness, Infoman and Gull appear to find it hard to believe that people have open access to information. In the new South Africa, information is no longer as hard to come by as it used to be: individual shareholders like me can not only get information, they
are *encouraged* to get that information. It's not 1920 any more, nor is it 1948, or even 1976. Do "Infoman" and "Gull" *honestly* believe that, either through some kind of "lottery" or by some kind of perpetual birthright, they have earned a constitutional protection for the "rights" to hundreds of Millions of Rands?
Nobody is questioning anyone's fair and legitimate right to compensation or their fair and legitimate right to succession, irrespective of who they are or what group they belong to. That's simply not the issue in dispute. Of course property rights are protected under one of the world's most recent constitu-
tions (did Infoman and Gull *honestly* believe anyone thought otherwise?) However, even assuming that the property *is* the "heirs" (which could apparently still be contested!) then I have yet to find a constitutional expert who doesn't get a look of incredulity on their face when I discuss this issue with them and ask them about someone's constitutional right to receiving 70 or 100 M Rand for mineral rights that were last registered when most of the population of South Africa had little in the way of rights. For "an heir" to call that a constitutional "right" is an unusual interpretation of the word "right".
Since Gull and Infoman seem to think that information like this is hard to get hold of, or is suspect for some reason, let me tell you that a phone call to your local university law school/faculty will put you in touch with or direct you to about professors/lecturers/experts on Constitutional Law. Speak to them: there's a genuine worldwide interest in South African Constitutional Law. Of course, they're not going to put a value on mineral rights: that's not the issue I'm getting at in this particular instance. What they *will* do is put the issue in perspective for you.
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of the constitution, it is interesting to note that one of the Constitutional Advisers to the South African Government was a respected Canadian Constitutional Law expert and Ontario Court of Appeal Judge in Canada. I'm not going to get into detail about that kind of thing because that's not the point of this post. The South African Constitution most certainly protects rights and freedoms. However, I don't think you can have something registered in a company name (since registering it in individuals'
names would subvert the law which does not provide for subdivision of mineral rights) under "unusual" circumstances (missing legal protocols, unprecedented haste in the transfer of those rights) dating back to 1920, and then suddenly claim that the constitution will protect you to the tune of R70 Million or R100 Million. The figure itself could be determined by a court or arbitration or agreement. In a nutshell, expecting the constitution to suddenly produce R100 Million for an heir is unrealistic. The constitution is not simply there to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals who want R100 Million for mineral rights, it's also there to protect all persons, including shareholders and the people of South Africa.
As for Infoman and Gull's posts about Section 17, their reports about the "outcome" of the case, and their reports that SUF had "lost" the case. Again,a very interesting interpretation. I sincerely hope no-one thinks that SUF "lost" anything. As for the "outcome" of the case and saying that SUF lost: well, it's hard to say the following without actually using the words that are called for, but I'll do my best. From what I can tell, any statement to the effect that SUF "lost the case" is simply not true. Both sides dropped their lawsuits, which means that reporting that SUF "lost" is incorrect. Interpreting that as a victory for the heirs/NGS seems very unusual indeed. In support of their argument, Infoman and Gull have posted bits of Section 17 which they claim substantiates their argument. Their argument goes something like this: "here's a bit of Section 17. Now that you've read it, you can see that the heirs are right. Now that the lawsuits have been dropped you can see that they've won!" Seems to me that SUF were very astute in dropping their Section 17 lawsuit and applying directly under Section 24 to the Minister: the "heirs" didn't seem to expect this turn of events!? It appears that now the dispute does not necessarily have to get bogged down in court for months/years. Perhaps in the old days, before 1994, the heirs wouldn't have had to go to court to determine whether they had won? I can't think why else they would actually announce that SUF has "lost" when in fact there was no trial "outcome" *both* parties dropped their lawsuits and SUF
took their case directly to the Minister.
And now that the rights to actually mine the deposit, which was found by Southernera, are in the Minister's hands, NGS/the "heirs" don't seem to be interested in getting hold of the relevant information from the South African Government (see postings by "Infoman" that reveal this attitude).
And now, on a different and unifying note, I'll finish with a quote from Dr. Penuell Maduna's speech which referred to the Governments's objectives for mineral rights. I hope you will all find this as inspiring as I did:
Quote from Dr. Penuell Maduna:
"I will begin by saying that May 9 1994 is like a sculpture, a national monument created by the masses of our people with historical and political precision, that will last forever in the minds of all South Africans, in the minds of our brothers and sisters on the continent and I daresay, in the consciousness of the whole world.
That was a memorable day; it was a culmination of the heroic role that our people played in the struggle for freedom and equality. In a wider and deeper sense, the events of 1994 remind us that indeed there is no immortality for systems nor for our people. Change is endemic to the human spirit as well as to the product that he or she produces.
Madam Speaker, it was from that day onwards that we, as a people, could again with legitimacy and pride espouse and exalt our identity and our culture. While the critics among us may very well indulge in posturing and shout 'not yet Uhuru' the fact of the matter is: the chains of bondage have been broken. The chains are down. The mind is free. The mind is free and ready for social and economic emancipation.The mind is free and ready to build a strong South African nation. "
(Quoted from Dr. Penuell Maduna's landmark speech in the National Assembly, May 1998.)
Nempela
|
