Livening my day is the response Martin van Staden has given (Questioning Hoffman’s broadside against SA’s federal Constitution) to my criticism (A little First Aid for Martin van Staden) of his openly reluctant support (A reluctant defence of AmaPanyaza after the latest own-goal by DA, FF+) of the failed Lesufi plan for a provincial police service.

Rather than engaging in a tedious point by point response, allow me to remind Daily Friend readers of the position Van Staden himself took in a learned and detailed essay published by the Cato Institute in 2021, to which he refers in his latest piece.

Under the subheading “Toward a Devolution Act”, he writes:

“Parliament should enact legislation providing a framework for devolution in South Africa and, where appropriate, provincial legislatures should enact similar legislation”

On the topic of law enforcement, we are on the same page (or were in 2021), as Van Staden pointed out then:

“Another important competence to devolve in the act is law enforcement. As noted above, the central government’s inability to deal with South Africa’s high violent crime rates is one of the motivators for calls for secession in the Western Cape. Section 199 (1) of the Constitution provides that the “security services of the Republic consist of a single defense force, a single police service and any intelligence services established in terms of the Constitution.” Section 199 (3) provides that other “armed organizations or services may be established only in terms of national legislation.” Section 205 (1) refers to the “national police service.” It is therefore evident that only a single police service may exist nationally, for the entire South Africa, but this does not preclude the existence of police services established by and for devolved governments. The devolution act should include a provision that, in terms of Section 199 (3), allows devolved governments to establish such police services.”

Had Lesufi taken the advice dispensed by Van Staden, above, by taking the parliamentary route he suggests, the AmaPanyaza could notionally have been legally set up in a manner which was constitutionally compliant.

He did not, and they weren’t kosher, leading to their demise at the hand of the Public Protector, who upheld the complaint lodged by Accountability Now, as reported in the Daily Friend on 24 October (Hoffman’s complaint leads to damning report on Lesufi’s “Amapanyaza”.)