Hon Chair, the Zulu people have a saying that goes, "Umuntu akalahlwa". [Do not give up on a person.] So, despite continuous disappointment with the ruling party, for the sake of the poor, the EFF did vote in favour of this Bill, for it provides services to the poor. However, there are massive issues with the Legal Aid Bill as it stands.
The very first one is that, 20 years down the line, we are only now changing a 1969 Act. I mean, that is shameful. Somebody once said that the real violence in society is not in the actual physical violence, but lies in the recording of history, the capturing of the legal records, the propagation of the media, the command, control and centralisation of the truth in order to misinform. I want to argue that we have been misinformed, not only as Parliament, but as society. We have listened to numerous people telling us that they have good stories to tell when they are actually subjecting the whole country to a law of 1969. But then it is not surprising, because if you look at how the security forces are being used, you can tell who swallowed this draconian trio that was started by Malan, Le Grange and a third person. We know who swallowed them hook, line and sinker; they are sitting on our right. The fruit of what they swallowed is coming out now. [Applause.] For if this Legal Aid Bill was really thorough we would have captured the issue of funding of commissions. They will come here and tell you that no, that issue will be dealt with in a separate policy, one supplementary to the Bill. I guess the people sitting here on my left - who service the poor communities and who get caught up in the unjust acts of the system - have to answer this question: Is this matter so serious that it warrants being captured in the Legal Aid Bill or should it be relegated to a separate policy? Because I do not think that the Marikana widows bargained on and planned for what happened to them. Overnight they woke up and needed legal cover. We know what happened; it took going to court countless times for Legal Aid to be able to cover them.
Perhaps another thing that is indicative of a clear lack of fundamental transformation in this Bill is the fact that in the public hearings of the committee on this Bill the gender-based groups, in its application, lamented the fact that Legal Aid is very, very selective in covering gender- based violence. But again I come back to what I elaborated on before. Who swallowed the National Party hook, line and sinker? Remember, during apartheid, domestic violence was a personal issue between man and wife. So, the fact that Legal Aid is a law dating back to 1969 law and does not cover this is indicative of the fact that the National Party is still rearing its head in the party on my right. One cannot swallow a party like that. [Applause.]
Perhaps another thing that is also indicative of the problems with this Legal Aid Bill, is who do we ask? Do we ask Legal Aid to come and tell us if they are performing well? That is another National Party tendency. Remember, its aim was not democracy, but to suppress. We should be bringing to public hearings the recipients of Legal Aid. They will come and tell the horror stories that Legal Aid is not telling us. I mean, there are stories as horrible as the recipients telling you that they put a lawyer who has just graduated from school on a murder case.. If that is what you call justice for the poor, people on my right, then I do not know what justice is. But then, you know, somebody also once said: "In the absence of the best, the worst becomes the best." So, in the worst that they are giving us, for the sake of the poor, we are forced to say, let this Bill go through. But we are not deceived in the knowledge that it is not clear and fundamental transformation.
And just on the note of going forward, for those who are interested, both on the right and perhaps on the left, the EFF has issued its conference documents and one of them is deals with thorough legal transformation.