Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
198 | denis beckett<br />
attached a diverse range of cuttings referring to Inkatha as<br />
“thugs” or worse. Some quoted famous wrong libel judgments<br />
– Liberace getting damages for “homosexual”, before he came<br />
out of the closet; Lloyd George for “adultery”, later proven.<br />
None of this made me the “winner” but it did tell me that many<br />
people were as bamboozled as I was.<br />
also, I had echoes of some feedback that went to Buthelezi,<br />
including a backer dropping him and an ally leaving him. I<br />
don’t believe his “victory” brought him joy. a while later, when<br />
he broke down at a much-publicised prayer meeting and wept<br />
about his conscience, I was much urged, not always tongue-incheek,<br />
to assure him that if returning my money would ease his<br />
conscience he should feel free. That was an idea I did not take up.<br />
But I did believe there was an error in play and I drafted a long<br />
earnest letter to the chief Justice to say so.<br />
I knew this was an unorthodox route. I’d taken some of those<br />
before, but this time, at the last minute, doubts arose. I went to<br />
see my former boss Judge Nick Nicholas.<br />
Nick had given me lots of firm counsel, mainly twenty years<br />
ago when I drafted reviews for him. This time he surpassed<br />
himself. He asked why the decision was wrong. I said: obvious,<br />
look at any newspaper. He asked why two courts would reach<br />
a wrong decision. I said: obvious, Buthelezi is the white<br />
establishment’s favourite Black.<br />
Half a hour later, in relief, I tore up my letter and dropped<br />
the scraps in a bin at the bottom of Nick’s hill.<br />
Point one, paraphrased from Nick’s meticulous wording<br />
and consummate elocution, was that if I thought either of<br />
these courts would let a political sentiment intrude on their<br />
interpretation of the law, I was out of my tiny mind.<br />
Point two was that even if the chief Justice had a blinding<br />
revelation with fiery chariots, there was nought he could do.<br />
The highest court had spoken, and it could not unspeak.<br />
Point three was that whatever the newspapers may say, the<br />
judges judged on evidence, and the evidence we had led was of<br />
a couple of guys being slapped around a bit.