On Monday, 18 January 2021, Liberty Fighters Network (LFN) asked the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to dismiss a complaint filed by one Tian Johnson on behalf of an organisation “The African Alliance” against South Africa’s Chief Justice. In the complaint, the NGO voices its unhappiness about Mogoeng Mogoeng expressing his beliefs in relation to vaccines.

In support of the complaint, Johnson submitted an alleged affidavit, apparently drafted by legal professionals. In it, Johnson states under oath to be a “non-binary” adult, instead of using proper reference to being either male or female. LFN says that under South African law, as it stands, one is not allowed to depose to an affidavit if one is not identified as either a male or a female and that, therefore, the Commissioner of Oaths was unable to ascertain the identity of Tian Johnson.

While the Minister of Home Affairs, Dr. Motsoaledi, recently announced his intention to make provision for “other genders” through the department’s “Official Identity Management Policy” which awaits the end of its public participation process on 28 February 2021, the laws pertaining to commissioning of affidavits  refer to “male” or “female” for identification purposes only.

LFN supports any initiative which opposes gender and/or sexual orientation discrimination. In this respect it’s objection is solely rooted in the fact that Tian Johnson could not have been properly identified as the deponent to the claimed affidavit and for that reason the affidavit should not be accepted by the JSC. Consequently, the complaint against the Chief Justice of South Africa should be dismissed.

“We find it odd that the submission was professionally drafted, but whoever authored it must have somehow overlooked that our law only allows either a male or female adult to depose to an affidavit,” says LFN President, Reyno De Beer. “Given that The African Alliance and VARG – one of Johnson’s other efforts – are directly and indirectly linked to pretty big names in the worldwide vaccine funding arena, from AVAC to Schwab and WEF, one is surprised. It clearly wasn’t the money,” he says.

Johnson also alleges that Mogoeng CJ transgressed Regulation 14 of the Disaster Management Regulations. It essentially states that anyone who deliberately distributes fake news about COVID-19 is guilty of an offence. In this regard, LFN informed the JSC that this regulation is included in the set which currently awaits adjudication by the SCA in LFN’s own matter. Therefore, this complaint could in any event only be finalised pending the outcome of LFN’s appeal before the SCA. LFN continues to lead the fight against the ongoing violations of human rights in our country, committed by government under the cover of the so-called COVID-19 measures. At this point, LFN opposes approval of any vaccine which did not undergo proper testing or which contains any chimeric or human embryonic material or any other potentially dangerous or life threatening substance or which contains any potentially genetically modifying substance. LFN strongly opposes any mandatory or otherwise coerced vaccination of South Africans.

Please consider making a voluntary donation of your choice in supporting our campaign to invest in your children’s future. LFN is the ONLY organisation that continuously opposes the Lockdown in our Courts and has a pending matter before the Supreme Court of Appeal…

Please consider making a voluntary donation to LFN through Mobipaid…

OR

Direct bank deposit to: Liberty Fighters Network, Capitec (Branch: 470010 / Swift: CABLZAJJ), Savings Acc. No. 1531241784

Yesterday, on 12 January 2021, LFN’s Reyno de Beer faced Minister of CoGTA, Dlamini Zuma’s legal team; now for the fourth time.

This urgent application intertwined with the ongoing legal battle between the Minister and LFN, which is now before the Supreme Court of Appeal. There, the Minister wishes to have set aside the essential nullification of all lockdown measures imposed by her under the Disaster Management Act, as per the Pretoria High Court judgment of 2 June 2020 in favour of LFN.

Even though the Minister had applied for leave to appeal, and was granted to do so, some elements contained in the original order had been excluded. Among them where the criminalization of alcohol sales and, importantly, the closures of beaches and Parks.

To appeal those, she applied to the Supreme Court directly and was also granted leave to appeal. But then she forgot to follow this process and, instead, closed the beaches just in time for the Christmas holidays and re-invented a new Level 3.

“That”, so LFN President de Beer, “is precisely what brings in the charge of Contempt of Court. While she didn’t follow an order made by a court, fully applicable to her, she tried to write herself out of the obligation to do so, which is another offense. Court orders are binding for everybody, regardless of who they are”, he said. If found guilty, immunity will not apply to the Minister.

Other matters raised were the compulsory wearing of face masks and the criminalization of so-called offenders. De Beer pointed out that, for the first time, the Minister had provided actual source information on which she had relied in her decisions. As it turns out, even the World Health Organisation itself does not prescribe any “social distancing” in preventing onward infections of Covid-19; the instead recommended “physical distance” prescribes a minimum of one meter only. Further, face masks are only recommended outdoors where this physical distance cannot be maintained.

While WHO as per its own documentation does not require the mandatory wearing of face masks, criminalisation of offenders is not recommended in the event of a local or national authority enforcing masks or other measures.

Underpinning the urgency of the matter were the events in Sebokeng of last Sunday where despicable and likely illegal conduct by the SAPS had resulted in injuries and arrests of church goers, for no good reason. While the mentioning of details resulted in strongly raised eyebrows by the judge, the Minister’s legal representative was quick to mention that such conduct was not a problem of regulation but one of implementation and that, therefore, it should not result in the condemnation of his client. Same was rebutted by Mr Mothopeng, appearing on behalf of the amicus in this matter. Judgement was reserved.

Please consider making a voluntary donation of your choice in supporting our campaign to invest in your children’s future. LFN is the ONLY organisation that continuously opposes the Lockdown in our Courts and has a pending matter before the Supreme Court of Appeal…

Please consider making a voluntary donation to LFN through Mobipaid…

OR

Direct bank deposit to: Liberty Fighters Network, Capitec (Branch: 470010 / Swift: CABLZAJJ), Savings Acc. No. 1531241784