1 Honeysuckle Walk
Belhar
7493
20 April 2009
Prof GJ Gerwel
Chairperson: Board of Trustees
Nelson Mandela Foundation
Private Bag X 70000
Houghton
2198
Dear Prof Gerwel
NEVER AGAIN
Please forgive this unsolicited mail, but I (and our country) need your wisdom on a grave matter. When Mr
Mandela (Madiba) sacrificed his freedom for our freedom and when he was released 27 years later, he said;
“Never again will one person oppress another in this country”. I am afraid that nightmare has been real for
the last three years. This letter concerns the political oppression of Parliament’s employees and the
shameful reaction of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC).
In March 2006, a colleague and I1 were ‘resigned’ by Parliament (RSA), when we transgressed a generally
unknown workplace policy. The policy stated;
‘If a staff member accepts nomination for election or appointment as a member of a statutory body, he/
she is regarded as having resigned from the Service voluntarily with effect from the date on which he
/she accepts such nomination or appointment.’
The CCMA found that it was not a resignation, but a dismissal. I later referred the unconstitutionality of
the policy to the SAHRC, which pronounced on 20 April 2007 (exactly two years ago!) that there was a
‘prima facie’ case, but further investigation was needed. Since then they have however been non-committal
to execute their constitutional mandate ‘without fear, favour or prejudice’. Parliament deliberately
provided insufficient information or ignored the deadlines of the SAHRC to provide supporting documents
to show that this policy was in line with the Constitution and/or national legislation. The Human Rights
Commission Act (Act 54, 1994) clearly states that it is a criminal offence not to cooperate with a SAHRC
investigation. It also provides the SAHRC with the necessary legal powers to ensure (force) the
cooperation of individuals and state organs to provide the required assistance in support of the execution of
its constitutional mandate. It seems however that the SAHRC lacks the ethical and political will to use
these powers to protect its integrity, independence and impartiality, as per the Constitution and the Act.
The above-mentioned policy was changed in July 2006, because I pointed out to Parliament that some
employees were members of statutory bodies (School Governing Bodies and Community Police Forums)
and were unknowingly contravening this policy. These bodies were established in terms of the South
African Schools Act and the South African Police Act, respectively. These staff members participated in
these bodies, because they wanted to strengthen their communities by taking ownership of our hard fought
democracy. The same reason why my colleague and I stood in the elections.
The amended policy however remained substantively the same;
‘An employee who stands for election to be a Member of the Assembly or a delegate of the National
Council of Provinces (NCoP) or a municipal council or a Provincial Legislature will be deemed to
1
My colleague (Independent Democrats) and I (Independent candidate) stood as candidates in the 2006 Local Government
Elections.

have resigned from Parliament with effect from the date on which his/her candidacy certificate is
issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.’
In early March 2009, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) published, on its website, the names of
five employees of Parliament, who were on the candidate lists of political parties for the 2009 elections.
Since then, these employees have been harassed by their managers to withdraw their candidacy before the
IEC issued the certificates on 7 April 2009, when they would be ‘resigned’. Two of them refused to
withdraw, after I explained to them the unconstitutionality of the policy. On 2 April 2009, Mr Coetzee, the
acting Secretary to Parliament2, ‘temporarily suspended’ the policy, after numerous letters from me
explaining the unconstitutionality of the policy. I also led a march on 6 March 2009 to highlight the
political oppression of Parliament’s employees.
Parliament is however adamant that the policy that was applied to me and my colleague did not violate our
human rights, even though the policy is substantively the same as the one that they are currently reviewing!
The stance of the SAHRC to this new development? Disinterest.
In my last letter (30 March 2009) to the SAHRC, written by my attorney, I asked whether it will use its
legal powers to bring my case to its logical conclusion; if not, why not? Failure to respond by 15 April
2009, would lead to court action to obtain an order to force the SAHRC to perform its functions, as per the
Constitution and its own act. This date has passed, but still the SAHRC does not own up to its mandate.
Unfortunately, one has to be rich to enforce ones constitutional rights, if the institution that was created to
fight for us does not have the ethical and political will to perform its functions without fear, favour or
prejudice.
Enclosed, please find the following;
1. Article: Cape Times - 14 Mar 2006
2. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 23 Jun 2006
3. Letter: SAHRC to G Campher - 20 April 2007
4. Letter: G Campher to SAHRC - 9 May 2008
5. Fax: G Campher to September - 22 Jan 2009
6. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament - 26 Jan 2009
7. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC - 28 Jan 2009
8. Letter: SAHRC to Parliament - 17 Feb 2009
9. Memorandum: G Campher to Parliament- 6 Mar 2009
10. Letter: Parliament to SAHRC - 6 Mar 2009
11. Fax: G Campher to SAHRC - 10 Mar 2009
12. Letter: Dykman Attorneys to SAHRC - 30 Mar 2009
13. Circular: Coetzee to Staff - 2 Apr 2009
I would appreciate your guidance in this important matter, which goes to the core of our constitutional
democracy.
If you need any further information, please contact us.
Yours faithfully
GABRIEL CAMPHER
E-mail: gcampher@greens.org.za
2
As you are aware Mr Dingani, the Secretary to Parliament and Accounting Officer, was suspended for dereliction of
duty, because he openly allowed fraud, corruption and nepotism by senior managers to plague the institution.