Imagine a president and health minster that denies the existence of Aids.
Imagine a health minster that sits by watching 900 of her countrymen die each day from the disease.
Imagine the same minister advocating garlic and beetroot as a cure for Aids.
Imagine a health minister that has absolutely no concept of being an administrator yet is responsible for the welfare of 49 million people.
Imagine the chaos having someone like her in charge for years will do to your country.
Imagine no one stops her...
Now you can imagine the gubbermunt of South Africa.
- - - - -
Manto ads spark contempt ruling
Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang may be guilty of contempt of court for criticising a ruling that allowed the Sunday Times newspaper to comment on her health records, said the Public Protector on Wednesday.
The Public Protector made this finding while investigating a complaint of misappropriation of funds against the health ministry.
The department paid more than R380 000 (taxpayer’s money) for five newspaper adverts last September which reacted to the court ruling related to Sunday Times reports on her health records.
Although the public protector found that the complaint of misappropriation of public funds did not have any substance, it notified the National Prosecuting Authority that the contents of the newspaper adverts constituted a possible contempt of court offence.
"Organs of state... have a constitutional obligation to protect the court to ensure its effectiveness and to uphold its dignity.
"Any conduct by an official of the state that is offensive and likely to damage the administration of justice is therefore unlawful.
Last August, a court ruled that the Sunday Times needed to return health records of the minister which were obtained illegally.
However, the judge turned down an application that the newspaper may not make any further comments about Tshabalala-Msimang's health records.
The health department criticised this part of the ruling in the newspaper adverts.
"The publication of statements accusing a judge of having delivered a judgment that poses a threat to the rule of law and referring to his reasoning as being incoherent and contradictory, might be regarded as having the potential of impacting negatively on the reputation of the court and the judge concerned," said the protector.
"It might also impact on the confidence that the public should have in the compliance of our courts with its constitutional imperatives relating to the administration of justice.
"It is, however, a matter that should be attended to by the authority charged with prosecutions."