Stainbank: Submission to Constitutional Court 13/07/2015

  • IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
  • (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
    • CASE NO: 65/2015
    • SCA CASE NO.: 20758/14
  •                                                                                     GLD, JHB CASE NO.’s: 31005/2007
    • & 31054/2011
  • In the matter between:                                                                                                       
  • ARNOLD MICHAEL STAINBANK                                                           APPLICANT
  • and
  • THE SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID MUSEUM AT
  • FREEDOM PARK                                                                           FIRST RESPONDENT
  • AKANI EGOLI (PTY) t/a GOLD REEF CITY CASINO              SECOND RESPONDENT
  • GOLD REEF RESORTS LTD                                                      THIRD RESPONDENT
  • COMPANIES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION
  • (REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES)                                                  FOURTH RESPONDENT
  •                                                                                                                                                            
  • APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE
  • SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT
  •                                                                                                                                                            
  • I, the undersigned
  • ARNOLD MICHAEL STAINBANK
  • do hereby make oath and state:
  • I am the Applicant in this application.I presently reside in Rivonia in the Province of Gauteng. Save where otherwise expressly stated, the facts deposed to in this affidavit are all within my personal knowledge and belief, and are to the best of my knowledge and belief both true and correct.
  • Our Reply Affidavit, the last of the three permitted affidavits, concerning our Application for Leave to Appeal the judgment of Keightley AJ, (SCA Case Number: 379/2015) was filed on 30 June 2015. This is one of the cases mentioned that will be affected by the outcome of this Case No. CC65/2015. A matter of material importance, especially, but not exclusively, related to the fraud as alleged in our founding affidavit, arises in the development and answer to that application for leave to appeal to the SCA.
  • In the said case, currently before the SCA, it is I and my two companies who are the applicants: The Apartheid Museum (Pty) Ltd Registration Number: 2009/007114/07 and The Apartheid Museum Foundation,Registration No. 2009/00703/08. I am responsible for both companies, which were registered in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act of 1973. In 2009, I was the owner of the registered trade mark The Apartheid Museum® in Class 35, registration number: 98/1337
  • We were uncertain about whether this application should be headed “Application to Adduce New Evidence” OR “Supplementary Affidavit”. We knew that, in the interest of justice, we ought to inform the court of new developments in the SCA matter that would impact on this case before the constitutional court. In development of this affidavit, we realised that it would be necessary to cast the new evidence in a fuller context.
  • We sought the advice of the Registrar of the Constitutional Court on or about Tuesday 07th July and he advised that we should head the submission “Application to Adduce New Evidence”.(The two headings are an added precaution of my own against any technicality that may fall outside of our knowledge.)
  • This court is aware of the fact that the 1st to 3rd Respondents, The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd and Gold Reef Resorts Limited, of their own volition, included the judgment of Keightley AJ, in their Answering Affidavit filed with this court. They did so notwithstanding the fact that it was the judgment of Pretorius AJ that was before court. The further evidence in this supplementary affidavit, related to the judgment of Keightley AJ is relevant to the court.
  • This application is self-contained. We refer to content that is in our founding affidavit, but, for ease of reference, we have included the relevant attachment(s) in this application as well. Our founding affidavit includes our Report to the Auditor General and draws on documents of South African Revenue Services (SARS).
  • Our Report to the Auditor General addresses fraud at the National Lotteries Board (NLB) in relation to an entity that in a statutory declaration lays claims to Registration Number 2001/019108/08. The declaration is signed by Christopher Till with John Kani in attendance. Richard Moloko, George Bizos and Reuel Khoza (Chairman of Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd) are listed as independent referees. The relevance of this is clearly outlined in our founding affidavit. From personal experience with the NLB since inception, I know that their guidelines insist that applicants follow rules:
  • “Please note that the three (3) referees (Section D of FORM 2010/1) must be independent of the organisation and not related to each other i.e. they should not be employees or members of the management committee or independent auditors or accountants who provide services to the organisation.”(Source: www.nlb.org.za – accessible at all times)
  • We concentrate now on one particular page of the SARS documentation which we filed in our application for leave to appeal in the SCA. We apologise in advance for repetition. This occurs not only because we want to be certain in our own articulation, but also because of our effort to develop a self-contained document for the court and, in terms of our work, continued student/community engagement on this case.
  • COMPANY INCORPORATION PRECEEDS REGISTRATION WITH SARS
  • The South African Revenue Services (SARS) collection of various taxes is specific to the unique identity and detail of the juristic person. The juristic person comes into existence, through incorporation undertaken by The Registrar of Companies.
  • Detail under a statutory declaration, supplied by the applicant, is first checked and then recorded by the Registrar of Companies in the process of incorporating the juristic person. The unique identity, with detail, in its entirety, is passed on to SARS. It is with definite purpose that SARS records this as: Particulars of LEGAL PERSON
  • Strict particulars, e.g. “full forenames” and “shortened form of name” and “the power to act”, as but three examples, are intended for statutory control; to ensure reconciliation of the unique detail of every juristic person. In the quest for unique details of every director, the requirement is “full forenames” and not simply “forenames”
  • In this instance, the CM29 is a statutory declaration in which the Applicant, on 22 June 2001, confirms that he has obtained the written consent of the directors or officers of the company on a duly completed CM27 form. At first glance, nothing seems irregular in the “full forenames” of the applicant; Sydney Abramowitch. (See “NEW100”)
  • We draw the attention of the court to one more element that, among many others, is most conclusive evidence of fraud in respect of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. According to Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd, the 2nd Respondent, this was the company “initiated by Messrs Abraham and Solomon Krok.” (My emphasis is important for the contentions we make in our conclusion of this application.)
  • We are now focused on just one page of the SARS record which reveals the “Particulars of the most Senior Directors”. This single page in respect of the most Senior Directors, in the absence of fraud, is a mirror of the CM27, which in turn is a mirror of the CM29. Company incorporation precedes SARS registration and the Registrar of Companies transmits company registration details to SARS, for the collection of taxes.
  • The full forenames of the Senior Directors that SARS records for SA Apartheid Museum (3 words) originate first in the CM27 and later in the CM29 incorporation documents as:
  • CHN KROESE – ID Number: 530311 51780 82
  • SA ABROMOWITCH – ID Number: 231130 50190 84
  • S KROK – ID Number: 290528 50760 04
    • (See “NEW101”)
  • The print out from the Registrar of Companies – the source - attached hereto–expands on the abbreviation and reveals those full forenames as:
  • CHN = CHRISTIAN HENDRIK NICHOLAAS
  • SA = SIDNEY ARNOLD
  • S = SOLOMON
  • (See “NEW102”)
  • These official records reveal that the CM27& CM29 for the incorporation of SA Apartheid Museum (3 words) correctly captured content as per the statutory declaration of Sydney Arnold Abramowitch dated 22 June 2001.
  • It follows therefore that had the Abramowitch CM27 and CM29 been the one declared for The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park (8 words), the names could not possibly have been recorded as CHRISTOPHER KROESE.
  • Similarly SIDNEY without ARNOLD on his CM29 is clearly a fraud intended to be reconciled with the untrustworthyand discredited two separate pages of the Power of Attorney (POA). (The court, we respectfully advise,ought to be mindful of the fact that nothing connects the 1ST page of the POA, bearing the name of the company with the 2ND page. Only the second page is signed by those purporting to be Directors.)
  • The court will absorb the fact that the only page where there is an attempt to forge a Saturday date stamp to a Sunday date Stamp is this particular page, where the name Sidney Abramowitch appears, without ARNOLD. It is common cause between the parties that the office of the Registrar of Companies is closed on weekends.
  • In my interview with Christian Hendrik Nicholaas Kroese, clearly his full forenames, it was he who, in his denials, confusion and fear pointed out to me that his name was not Christopher as per the records of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. The respondents and the Registrar of Companies are aware of this.
  • The CM27 statutory declaration signed by Christopher Till, on 05 July 2006, FIVE YEARS after the Abramowitch declaration on 22 June 2001, could not possibly have altered the real full forenames of CHRISTIAN HENDRIK NICHOLAAS Kroese and SIDNEY ARNOLD Abramowitch, captured as such by the Registrar of Companies and passed on to SARS. These two actual full forenames ALREADY EXISTED on the database of The Registrar of Companies. Nothing, other than fraud, could possibly have changed these true full forenames to false full forenames.
  • For the sake of context, it important to repeat the fact that the letter of 16 September 2002, from Attorney MacRobert, acting on behalf of the 1st Respondent Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd, made no mention of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, even though, the court is now asked to believe that it was incorporated 13 months earlier on 14 August 2001.
  • The greater part of the information outlined above, in our SCA founding affidavit, from about Paragraph 68 to 76, formed one part of our submissions on The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park. Against this compelling further evidence of fraud as alleged, it is the Answering Affidavit of MacRobert, which brings the rules of Plascon Evans, to the forefront of the issues before this Constitutional Court. His response is curt, unintelligible and especially unresponsive to these serious allegations of fraud. The relevant page in the Answering Affidavit is attached as “NEW103”.
    • “How SARS refers to the Respondent has nothing to do with the Respondent, nor with this case.”AND“ There was no fraud whether demonstrated by Mr Stainbank’s incoherent allegations or at all. ID Numbers are used at all times and differences in spelling (such as they may be) reveal just differences in spelling. As I have posited before, who was trying to defraud who and for what purpose?
  • The evidence is as it is. We are not discussing spelling errors. In fact there are no spelling errors. These revelations are now far more serious than that.
  • Below is “Paragraph 1”, the introduction to our founding affidavit in the SCA. Deliberately situated as an introduction, this page contributes in material ways to criminal conduct. Our thrust, evident from the wording, is clearly directed also at The South African Judiciary and our 15 years of trying to secure justice.
  • GOLD REEF CITY CASINO; FREEDOM PARK and THE APARTHEID MUSEUM
    • The entirety of this case can be summed up by a judicious assessment of two averments made under oath. Ten years apart and, and yet, corrupt as they are, they remain unresolved by any court. Their significance is central to this application for leave to appeal. No court has ever granted leave to appeal and, notwithstanding countless material contradictions such as these, no court has chosen the efficacy of evidence under cross examination. To date, three judges have recused themselves from this case. Submitted also in the interest of the judiciary - post 1994.
    • AVERMENT NUMBER ONE: 01 NOVEMBER 2002
  • Sworn Affidavit of Gold Reef City Casino (AKANI EGOLI): Chairman Reuel Khoza
  • The instructing attorney: Donald Lindsay MacRobert
  • “The initiators of The Apartheid Museum project were Messrs Solomon and Abraham Krok, who, apart from being the founders of my company, Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd, which trades as Gold Reef City and Casino, were also the initiators of the Section 21 Company known as The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.”            (Deponent:Richard Moloko)
      • AVERMENT NUMBER TWO: 01 FEBRUARY 2012
  • The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park
  • Sworn Affidavit: Attorney Donald Lindsay MacRobert
  • “I point out that according to what he instructed me, Advocate Bizos who is a director of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park has never had any dealings with the Kroks and neither they nor any of their companies are involved with The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.” (Deponent: Donald Lindsay MacRobert)
  • Again, evidenced on the averments above, the respondent clearly has different versions for different courts. The response from MacRobert is as follows: Ad paragraph 1
  • “This case has no relation to the extracts from the said affidavits. What is pertinent is the Applicants continued contempt for the Tshabalala J Order. It is also not true “three judges have recused themselves from this case” I have been involved in all the litigation and not a single judge has recused him/herself.”
  • A judicious interpretation of constitutionalism will determine whether MacRobert is correct on that score. I, and my loved ones, will hold the hope that the“importance to the community” a principle of law established in Beckenstrater v Rottcher and Theunissen may dictate that the person who commits fraud upon the court gets to prison before the one who uncovers the fraud upon the court and shares it with one’s community. Indeed, one who uncovers malfeasance on the part of the court, is obliged to share same with the community.In our discussion groups we find resonance for this interpretation of law. But that is a matter for this court to decide.
  • From those two averments, 10 years apart, many unresolved issues around George Bizos, the director, have material impact on the matter before this court. Also, the other person who has been involved in “ALL the litigation” is Advocate Owen Salmon, on the instructions of attorney Don MacRobert.
  • Advocate Salmon, secured the interim court order on nothing other than the perceived public image of George Bizos. In a theatrical display, like Pretorius AJ in the court a quo, Advocate Salmon prevailed on the notion that nothing about George Bizos is open to question by our courts.
  • We have difficulty with this, especially since, extensive media coverage speaks glowingly of the unrelenting (and courageous) effort that George Bizos of Freedom Under Law, invests in having Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe impeached.
  • I have never met Hlophe JP. I should add though that; to the extent that I understand the case against Hlophe JP, it seems to me rather strange that nobody has seen fit to assess ALL my evidence around White judges, Southwood J and Claassen J, coming into court on FRIDAY 20th June 2003 and FRIDAY 21st November 2003, when Fridays in the Pretoria High Court are reserved for divorces and urgent matters.
  • Nevertheless, I was surprised when I learnt that it was George Bizos, who, in a bid to have Hlophe JP impeached, insisted that the enquiry into the conduct of Hlophe JP, be referred to oral evidence. Bizos and others responsibile for The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, have flatly refused to have their evidence subjected to cross examination. I am of the view that a reasonable person’s opinion, given without fear, favour or prejudice, would be that it is the conduct of a bigot
  • Advocate Salmon, instructed by Attorney MacRobert addresses Justice Tshabalala:
  • Again, M’Lord, that is the (Stainbank) reference to Bizo’s in his capacity as the director, and M’Lord, George Bizos was not involved anywhere near that case in 2002, I can assure your lordship on that.” (See“NEW104”a&b)
  • The judgment of Pretorius AJ, now on appeal before this court, without the tale that George Bizos told about “that case in 2002” must, on the version of attorney and counsel, be struck down in its entirety. The evidence of George Bizos, this court is aware, was argued before Pretorius AJ by Advocate Owen Salmon. These facts may also shed light on why Pretorius AJ, at the request of Salmon, rejected my application to adduce new evidence. This is not the only time that serious question about George Bizos, as a director of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park arises. That familiar stratagem emerges again: different versions for different courts.
  • Because the omissions in the SCA answering affidavit pervert the course of justice, in our Reply Affidavit, we filled in the spaces that MacRobert chose to ignore. We did this because we have, in the past, unlawfully so, been denied the benefit of the Plascon Evans rule. We repeat and further submit as follows.   
    • The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park does not exist, has never existed and is nothing more than a cut, paste, forge and photocopy fraud, with the assistance of whomsoever the initiators, Abraham and Solomon Krok colluded. The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, we contend is a fictitious non-existent deception that, against all the evidence and statutory incorporation requirements exists, without evidentiary and statutory support, in the minds of malfeasant courts. And contrary to law, The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, has been afforded locus standi.
  • Against the MacRobert omissions, we mention Akani Egoli’s Gold Reef City Casino (2nd Respondent) as but one, among other casino assets, listed in the Annual Reports of Gold Reef Resorts Limited (the JSE listed company) The Chief Executive Officer of Gold Reef Resorts Limited, (3rd Respondent) at all relevant times, is one Steven Joffe. The educational qualifications for Steven Joffe are noted thus: H.Dip (Company Law) CA (South Africa) B.Com (Hons Taxation)
  • The Power of Attorney Form, and indeed the inception documents of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park, lists the same Steven Joffe as one of the Directors who gave three law firms the power to incorporate a company by the name The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park (8 words).
  • Consecutive Annual Reports of Gold Reef Resorts Ltd, signed off by the CEO, Steven Joffe since 2002/2003, record the name of Akani Egoli’s Section 21 company thus:.
  • “The South African Apartheid Museum (5 Words) is a Section 21 company which operates the museum adjacent to the Theme Park. The South African Apartheid Museum was developed by Akani Egoli as one of its casino licence conditions. Akani Egoli contributes a fixed monthly fee to fund the operational expenses of the museum.”
  • Judge Meyer Joffe, who in 2005, sentenced National Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi to 15 years for fraud,corruption and money laundering states the constitutional principles that informed his decision thus:
  • “... in considering the issues in dispute, the accused's evidence will be considered and a determination will be made whether the accused's version is reasonably possibly true.
  • Incidentally, I was certain that MacRobert knew of the judges who recused themselves from this case. We have attached “NEW105” – Boruchowitz AJA; “NEW106”- Satchwell J and “NEW107” - Lewis JA. Boruchowitz AJA, unlike Southwood J, who as an advocate represented the Kroks, recused himself on the basis that he knew them.
  • Other important evidence that emerges in the matter before the SCA will assist this court in its quest to determine what is reasonably possibly true especially since the established rules of Plascon Evans should apply in civil proceedings.
  • This court will be especially mindful of the MacRobert response to a challenge we created and which MacRobert failed to meet. Taking the clear, unambiguous language used by Lesego wa Lesego as the example, we submitted that a court seeking to protect its integrity (as per Keightley AJ) would appreciate all the help it could get from those whose profit driven motives, benefitted from favourable judgements of the court.
  • We are of the view that, as but one example, the two material averments that MacRobert, so nonchalantly dismisses, constitute a very serious indictment on the court in a constitutional democracy. Where the court seeks to exonerate itself; to uphold its dignity, it is obliged to examine how and where justice was perverted and apportion responsibility either to itself, or to those it deems responsible for perjury and/or fraud upon the court. In the event the court finds fraud, perjury and fraud upon the court, the court will be obliged in such an instance, to determine the loss and damages that we have suffered as a result of such criminal conduct.
  • In our view, the court is not itself without blame. The obvious injustice that we have suffered these many past years arises as a direct result of courts, though clearly faced with countless disputes in the facts, refusing to take the matter to trial, and worse, contrary to law relying on hearsay evidence. More on this unfolds soon enough.
  • Attorney MacRobert is in the SCA alone now. There is not a single affidavit, confirmatory or otherwise, which bears evidence in support of the claim that The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park is a duly registered company. A lonely but courageous MacRobert, at first glance appears to be the only one willing to take responsibility for advice (and other things) he did for his clients.
  • Most instructive though in this Answering Affidavit to the SCA, even MacRobert for the first time, as I recall, suddenly avoids the full detail of the client he represents. The law requires that a juristic person seeking to be heard before court be clearly identified with a full account of the detail and specification of the enabling legislation which brought the said juristic person into existence: “duly registered in terms of section 21 of the companies Act” is not stated under oath in the Answering Affidavit now at the SCA. (See “NEW108 a&b”) and notice also the blatant untruth about Solly Krok having at all times submitted confirmatory affidavits. The old (“a”) detailed format and this latest format (“b”) reveal how MacRobert omits the legal requirement.)
  • If there is anything other than an illusion of a company, there would be many “very influential and well respected people” (to borrow from the court a quo) who should have been accessible to MacRobert and who should, unless fearful of further perjury and fraud, be willing to help the court to retain (or regain) its dignity after these many judgments in favour of an entity that never ever existed in fact and in law.
  • No such support is available anymore. It must be remembered though that the support of others, over these many years, by commission and/or omission, was available before our research and investigation unearthed this hard evidence of fraud. Most, if not all, knew of the hard evidence. They, dishonestly so, lent support while comforted in the hope that the billionaires would exhaust the emotional and financial resources my family invest in our search for justice.
  • If at all there is a company that is not fictitious, a company that exists in fact and in law, we list as conspicuous by their absence, the following juristic and natural persons who could, and or should, be willing to withstand cross examination on the lawful authenticity of the South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.
  • COMPANIES/ORGANISATIONS/ORGANS OF STATE – JURISTIC PERSONS
    • The three law firms given the Power of Attorney to incorporate the entity.
    • THE GAUTENG GAMBLING BOARD in every conceivable way
    • The 2nd and 3rd Respondents,in this case, now before court
    • ALL funders under the Registration Number: 2001/019108/08
    • Department of Arts and Culture under FICA and the PFMA
    • The National Lotteries Board under FICA and the PFMA
    • The South African Reserve Bank under FICA
    • Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs under FICA
    • Price Waterhouse Coopers - Auditors
    • Werksmans Attorneys under FICA
    • South African Revenue Services
    • Old Mutual/Nedbank
  • THE KNOWN NATURAL PERSONS IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES
    • Christian Hendrik Nicholaas Kroese: White
    • Gretchen Esther de Smit of ENF – White
    • Sidney Arnold Abramowitch: White
    • SOLOMON KROK: WHITE
    • Martin-Zane Krok: White
    • Christopher Till: White
    • BarendSchutte: White
    • Steven Joffe: White
    • George Bizos: White
    • Kim Feinberg: White
    • Maxim Krok: White
    • Abe Krok (deceased)
    • Suraya Essop of ENF
    • Kgomotso Matthews
    • REUEL KHOZA
    • Richard Moloko
    • Robert Williams
    • Mxolisi Diliza
    • Brian Thlabi
    • John Kani
    • Lot Ndlovu (deceased)
    • Dan Mzizi (murdered)
  • THE WORK OF THE APARTHEID MUSEUM
  • The book published by The Apartheid Museum Pty (Ltd) in 2011 is titled:
    • We look at White people and we think Oh! MY GOD!
    • The TRUE story of two racist White men and The Apartheid Museum
  • This book, which I authored, forms part of our outreach and educational programme:
  • Toward a cognitive understanding of racism and the inherited pathology of the slave
  • Neither Pretorius AJ nor Keightley AJ, make mention of our book, even though it forms an integral part of the evidence in the court record. My book was submitted, not only as a documented record of our experience; it was, in the absence of a legal definition an important educational tool on racism, as alleged in the papers before court. The allegation stands believing, as we do, that racism is outlawed by the constitution.
  • The various references to racism as alleged, in the judgment of Keightley AJ, do not make mention of any part of my book in reference to my submissions on racism. Our 48 Page full colour prospectus was also in evidence before the court of Keightley AJ.
  • BRIEFLY:The main title of our book, are the borrowed words and feelings of a Grade 9 student who,in 2006, was interviewed by Professors Patmann and Bhana in a research project conducted by the University of Kwazulu Natal. In context, this young Black girl child, explains that she feels a lesser human being. It is the pain of her lived experience whichcries out: “We look at White people and we think Oh! My GOD!
  • The research study concludes thus:
    • “Though the formerly white schools with their mix of white, black and Indian students can be read as exemplars of post-apartheid integration, they are, when set in relation to the much more poorly resourced black schools, elitist institutions which reinforce assumptions about white superiority and black inferiority.”
  • My emphasis above is intended to draw attention to a few extracts from our prospectus, which is an expansive integration of thought, form and environment. These extracts combined and summarised are to be found in our book as well.
    • The Apartheid Museum bears little resemblance to any other museum. It is not academic nor is it dependent on trinkets, trivia and memorabilia to sustain it. It seeks to illustrate history in a context that takes account of the impact of colonialism and apartheid on every aspect of our lives. The Apartheid Museum shall act as a catalyst in restoring the psychological health and balance of a people destroyed by apartheid. This need for psychological redress is the primary challenge facing The Apartheid Museum.
  • I developed The Apartheid Museum because I am that young Black girl child. Unlike me though, her entire schooling,has been under government led by the ANC. We are told that it is a revolutionary government. I was born in 1952 and schooled under a White Supremacist Government. I am a Black person as defined in the lexicon of the Black Consciousness Movement in the Republic of South Africa. Black people are those who are by law or tradition, politically oppressed, economically exploited and socially discriminated against and who identify as a unit in the struggle towards their aspirations to create a free and egalitarian society. The BCM’s definition of Blackness was designed to persuade people into making a choice – they either identified with the colonial apartheid racist system; in which event, they were considered “non-white”, OR, they identified themselves with the forces struggling for liberation of Black people from bondage, in which case they were considered to be “Black”.
  • In my development of The Apartheid Museum, I knew the effort we needed to regain our humanity; to overcome the savagery of our 400 year experience. Hence:“theprimary challenge facing The Apartheid Museum.”
  • White savagery, otherwise colonial apartheid’s barbaric racism, made manifest in genocide and the enslavement of Afrika, dispossessed us of our inherent personality, our land, our natural resources, our language, culture, religion, hopes, aspirations and dreams. They dispossessed us of both our humanity and the opportunity to develop further on our own terms.
  • White savagery, after dispossession, without apology and without reparation, which includes our right to heal ourselves as we see fit continues as the racist element of the White population, shape, dominate and entrench their world view in order to advance their perspective of our historical experience. Dispossession – the only objective of colonial apartheid racism – they’ve calculated, must endure into the future
  • The invitations I receive to speak and engage on racism spring from a public that is shocked by the facts of this case and inspired by our articulation of apartheid colonial racism. I am very uncertain about which public Keightley AJ is referring to, when speaking of my imprisonment being in the public interest. The public that attends my lectures concur that the savagery of racism endures to this day and is evidenced by my young Black girl child. I should take this opportunity to mention that victims of racism participate in the manifestation of systemic and institutionalised racism.
  • It is deliberate mischief and obfuscation on the part of various courts, when they peddle the notion that I have an objection to the Kroks as White people, wanting to do whatever it is they say they want to do about apartheid and with whomsoever they may want to do it. My case originated in my constitutional right to the registered trade mark The Apartheid Museum®. My papers of 2002/2003 reveal nothing more and nothing less, until I encountered Justice Brian Southwood, other courts and various other organs of State under an ANC led government.
  • The detail we have made available about the brothers Krok, while pertinent to my personal interests, is relevant to a court that is willing to embrace the transformational aspirations of our constitution. The foundational wealth of the brothers Krok, as a matter of fact – not allegation - is derived from the negation of blackness as a characteristic of Afrikan people. The negation of blackness is the cornerstone of White savagery in the form of colonial apartheid racism, which the twin brothers exploited. Justice Brian Southwood assisted by Attorney Owen Salmon, as they were back then, demonstrated the extent of that wealth in the Appellate Division in Hollywood Curl vs TWINS.
  • The point about the Kroks skin whitening creams is that it occurs to them as lucrative business in the time of apartheid and enormous Black suffering. I cannot understand the courts, because I am not the only person who sees that conduct for what it is. Willis J, as he was then, called my exposition of skin whitening creams an allegation while he was staring Advocate Owen Salmon in the face.
  • Put aside for the moment, the political intent and psychological harm. It gets decidedly worse because, fully aware of the irreparable harm caused by their excessive use of both hydroquinone and mercury, the brothers Krok, fought against the banning of skin whitening creams. Perhaps, the most conclusive element of their racist ethos is the fact that they marketed their snake oil products to our mothers and fathers as SKIN CARE.
  • In the face of large scale illiteracy, it is this last blatant lie against which The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park and the entirety of the fraud; post the enactment of our constitutional democracy, we submit, must be adjudicated.
  • THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
  • RACIST MALFEASANCE
  • SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM
  • The entirety of this case originates in the privilege of a public licence; the property of the people of South Africa. It is on the version of the 2nd & 3rd Respondent, the owners of the Gold Reef City Casino licence, that we find ourselves at this critical point of our encounter with racism.
  • “In submitting the application for the casino license, my company, as a gift to South Africa, and it’s present government; offered to erect the museum which I have described, namely one which would remind visitors (and other readers of the extensive publicity material) of the past wrongs of the apartheid system. Thus, the erection and the establishment of the museum as a gift to the nation” Case No: TPD 26295/2002
  • The above evidence filed under oath in the court of Judge Brian Southwood, is from Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd. More evidence, submitted to the court by Akani is gleaned from their Press Release, writtenfor PUBLIC consumption:
    • “The Apartheid Museum as a concept was conceived by business tycoons Solly and Abe   Krok.” “ . . the project was conceived four years ago by business tycoons twins Solly and Abe Krok, as a carrot to be dangled before the Gambling Board in the hope of securing a gambling licence for the Gold Reef City Casino”
    • (Sunday Times, 02 December 2001 – Charlotte Bauer).
  • Also, submitted to the court by Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd is the article by Jeremy Gordin of The Sunday Independent on 18 November 2001.
    • HEADLINE: Tycoon Solly Krok found inspiration for Johannesburg’s new Apartheid Museum while visiting a memorial to the holocaust in Washington.”I also realised it had to be called the Apartheid Museum” says Solly Krok.
  • Later, after Southwood J, Solomon Krok, intent on crafting (in advance) the text for his obituary, called upon the biggest selling newspaper to guarantee his shot at fame. (They are very obliging, for these purposes, at the Sunday Times)
  • "Whatever happens in my life, I would like to be remembered as the creator of The Apartheid Museum. It's my crowning glory."(Sunday Times, 27 February 2005)
  • As it turns out, the “conception and creation” of these two White men, supposedly derived from thinking deep innermost thoughts, is brought into the court of Judge Southwood by Richard Moloko – a non-white man. This non-white man, assisted by attorney Donald Lindsay MacRobert, confirms under oath that he is a director of Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd – the holder of the Gold Reef City Casino Licence. He confirms under oath that he is also a director of The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.
  • BRIEFLY: As it turns out, MacRobert, who is at all relevant times attorney for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, Respondents was also involved in the MacDonald’s trade markcase in some or other way. The highly regarded Professor Owen Dean of the Anton Mostert Chair of Intellectual Property has written an insightful article on this McDonalds’ trademark case: MCDONALD’S TURNS THE TABLES ON TRADE MARK HIJACKERS.
  • Southwood J, held that the McDonalds trademarks, were not well–known foreign trade marks in South Africa and that a portfolio of more than 50 registered trademarks belonging to McDonalds Corporation must be cancelled on the grounds of non-use. Professor Dean tells us that the decision of Justice Southwood was greeted with incredulity in trade-mark legal and business circles around the world, particularly in the United States of America. It had far reaching and significant legal, political, and commercial implications, and gave rise to the contention that South African trade-mark law does not comply with international standards for protecting foreign trade marks.”
  • The judgment of Southwood J, was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Professor Dean: “The approach of EM Grosskopf JA, with whom the other four judges of appeal concurred, was diametrically opposed to the approach adopted by the lower court. When one considers the two judgements, it is difficult to comprehend how the two courts could have reached such contrasting judgements on the same facts and law.
  • CONTINUING: Nevertheless Judge Southwood, in his McDonalds judgement, explains that the law of evidence prohibits the admission of hearsay evidence in criminal and civil proceedings and defines hearsay evidence as “evidence, whether oral or in writing, the probative value of which depends upon the credibility of any person other than the person giving such evidence”.
  • The Honourable Judge Brian Southwood continues:
  • “I am not of the opinion that the evidence should be admitted in the interests of justice. In particular, the evidence is tendered to establish one of the crucial facts. It does not show this fact. There was ample opportunity for McDONALD’S to file this evidence in accordance with accepted evidentiary rules and there is no explanation for the failure to do so.”
  • In our concluding submissions we are especially aware and reliant upon the fact that in 13 years of litigation, with as many case references to draw upon; not one single word is available from Solomon Krok on his innermost thoughts. Not one single word,before he joined the ancestors in January 2013, came from Abraham Krok either.
  • No court,notwithstanding Solly Krok’sconsistent quest for glory, and our objections, allowed the rules of evidence, as stated by Southwood J, to disturb their decisions. There was ample opportunity for the Kroks to file evidence in accordance with accepted evidentiary rules and there is no explanation for their failure to do so.
  • In this regard, it may well be time for the courts to revisit “racism in the judiciary” as discussed by among others; Advocate Charles Pillia(1953-2010) Arthur Chaskalson CJ (1931-2012) Pius Langa CJ (1939-2013) Hlophe JP, Ncgobo CJ and Mogoeng CJ.
  • Of particular significance to this court is again the founding affidavit Southwood J relied upon when he expunged my trademark in Class 41. We repeat the words of MOLOKO.
    • “ . . . the initiators of The Apartheid Museum project were Messrs Solomon and Abraham Krok, who, apart from being the founders of my company, which trades as Gold Reef City and Casino were also the initiators of the Section 21 Company known as The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park.
  • This averment, under oath by Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd is worth repeating for the following reasons. First, is the fact that when these many serious questions arise around the very existence of the purported company that Messrs Abe and Solly Krok initiated, there is no evidence of probative value available to the court.
  • Secondly, the respondents, of their own volition, conducted themselves in the manner that they did with whomsoever they chose. Conduct of their own doing, leaves them stranded before a constitutional court, without any probative value that can be attached to the evidence in the Answering Affidavit submitted to this court. In fact, it leaves them with nothing whatsoever for all the years that malfeasant courts have allowed hearsay evidence; particularly as the evidence is tendered to establish ALL of the crucial facts.”
  • We will submit that, in the interest of justice, the entirety of the respondents’ account, from 2002/2003, be struck from the records of South African judicial history, especially since the very first fraud upon the court; ALL the crucial facts, originate in that account.
  • We have failed in our effort to find the Report on Racism in the Judiciary, by Hlophe JP. We do not have the benefit of the cases that inspired Charles Pillai’s scathing comments about racist judgments and neither have we had sight of the investigations conducted by Chaskalson CJ and Langa CJ. We have nothing against which to reference our experience at the hands of the South African Judiciary for 13 years.
  • On 13 March 2005, in a comment to City Press after her report to Parliaments’ Justice Portfolio Committee, Minister of Justice, Bridget Mabandla speaking of the report of Hlophe JP, said: “… thank goodness it is happening because the judiciary cannot be sacrosanct and stand away from people's ordinary experiences,"
  • The comment made by Minister Bridget Mabandla in 2005, explains precisely why Southwood J in 2003, could never have been the end of our quest for justice. Working against racism is our work, as much as fighting for the “rule of law” may be the work of Freedom Under Law.
  • The judgment of Keightley AJ, finds mala fide intent against directors and lawyers of a company, when no company in law and in fact exists. We came to the court of Keightley AJ, to argue the non-existence of the company, and the court decided it wanted to raise, as fact mind you, the name. We pause to remind this court that it has been admitted that here is no CM5; no name reservation was necessary for Messrs Abe and Solly Krok when they initiated The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park with the Registrar of Companies, an organ of State, under an ANC led government.
  • And more so now, the lawyers, officers of the court, that purportedly incorporated the company refuse to step up to the plate to provide the probative value that the court needs at this time.
  • That finding is wrong, but also, with respect, convenient, as it diverts attention away from the bigger issues we have uncovered in respect of conduct in the South African Judiciary, which issues are both of public interest and concern. It is an injustice and gross violation of my human rights and dignity that I should be imprisoned for addressing issues which are not only of public interest but also relevant to the public and their understanding of the justice system. The public has an interest in the justice system and the manner in which the courts adjudicate and, more so, under a constitutional democracy, the courts are deemed to be a protector of the public and should thus therefore be accountable to that public.
  • The court of Keightley AJ, confronted with a challenge on jurisdiction, cannot sit in judgment of its own alleged malfeasance and confirm imprisonment based on the provisions of an interim court order granted to other parties. There is no order granted in favour of the court. A court, we will submit, has a duty to consider the matter, on ALL the grounds and all relevant circumstances submitted in the challenge on its jurisdiction.
  • The court of Keightley AJ reached conclusions on the Kroks racist conduct without having heard a single word in defence from the Kroks. The court decided for them.
  • IN CONCLUSION:
  • Our work is rooted in people’s ordinary lived experiences, like my own and that of our young Black girl child who inspired the title of my book.NEW LANDSCAPE NEW IMAGES, the title of my 48 page full colour prospectus – on the front cover - immediately conveys a sense of the inner content. The accompanying photographic image, compliments the title. BIKO; SOBUKWE; HANI and MANDELA are captured in iconic bronze sculptures, as I educate for a new landscape with new images. The Apartheid Museum, I envisaged was developed against the background of my lived experience and that of black people living the scourge of racist dispossession.
  • On 08 March 2015, a solid 21 years after government of South Africa was transferred to the ANC, Chumani Maxwele, a student at the University of Cape Town, smeared human faeces onto a sculpture of Cecil John Rhodes. University students across the country, on their lived experience, joined the protest and brought the country to a standstill, as they agitated for a new landscape with new images. The students took occupation of the administrative block and renamed it AZANIA HOUSE. Their minds are set on more; a decolonisation of education.
  • “Give people a poor education, and the mind will find out. Revolt is then inevitable.” (Es’kia Mphahlele 1984) The ANC government is surprised by #RHODESMUSTFALL.
  • Our prospectus was published in 1998 at a time when most, if not all, these students were in primary school.In 1998, all the national leaders of the government of South Africa led by the African National Congress were the first to receive our 48 Page Full Colour prospectus; New Landscape New Images. Congratulations from the Office of President Nelson Mandela on 29 January 1999 reads: “I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all the best with The Apartheid Museum initiative. Clearly the concept has much potential to contribute to nation building in our country.”
  • The resolution of the Bloemfontein Transitional Local Council, in 2000, to build The Apartheid Museum was secured without any consultation or input whatsoever from National Government led by the ANC.The first indication of our fate was to be found later in the averments of Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd.“… the concept of establishing a museum as a reminder of the past apartheid days was warmly welcomed by the State President and other senior ranking members of government.”
  • Many years later we hear an account from the internationally celebrated author Zakes Mda, who tells us that Reuel Khoza, Chairman of Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd invited him to join a Gold Reef City Casino delegation visiting former President Nelson Mandela.
    • “It became clear to me what my role was at this meeting. The impression was being given to Nelson Mandela that I was an important cog in the Apartheid Museum project. Yet I was not. I was just one of the many irrelevant committee members. The movers and the shakers of the project were all white. I was a black face who was merely a front to show the great man that black folks were participating actively in the project.”
  • In this context it is worth repeating the letter Attorney Don MacRobert sent to the Registrar of Companies, under Minister Rob Davies of the African National Congress:
    • “…the name “Apartheid Museum”…was agreed upon with the ANC. Originally our client wished to use the name Freedom Park but the ANC requested them not to use that name (which is now used in Pretoria as you know) and so our clients, with the blessing of the ANC adopted and used the name “The Apartheid Museum” and such use has been substantial and the name enjoys national and international rights which attach to our clients”
  • And so it is that when the judgment of a court examines “use of a registered trademark” and chooses not to mention the Bloemfontein resolution,and so much else, it is easy to for a general public to believe words to the effect that my project The Apartheid Museum;“never got off the ground” and that “nothing more was achieved.”
  • Without the Bloemfontein resolution and other uses of my trademark written into their judgments, the public and certainly the likes of EM Grosskopf JA, and the other four judges, will concur that Southwood J, repeated precisely the wrong that led to the writing of the article on Trademark Hijackers. Coming into court on a FRIDAY, when the rules do not allow, must be considered in context. Willis J, writing a “REPORTABLE” judgment and avoiding, rather than seizing the opportunity to defend it, is, with respect, contrary to the development of transformational jurisprudence. Untruths and omissions, unless corrected, will skew historical fact and pervert the course of justice.
  • In a constitutional democracy, adjudication before our courts, we respectfully submit, is, first and foremost subject to the provisions of the law of evidence and the established principles of law laid down in the Plascon Evans rule.
  • In a constitutional democracy, adjudication before our courts, to meet our transformational aspirations, we respectfully submit, requires a keen understanding of the history of our country. The South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park must be adjudicated against the entirety of the fraud as alleged. Our submission is as follows:The Gold Reef City Casino edifice unlawfully marketed as The Apartheid Museum is, in its entirety, a cesspool of racist malfeasance.
  • ________________________________________
  • ARNOLD MICHAEL STAINBANK – DEPONENT
  • Signed and sworn to by the deponent at __________ on this the ____ day of JULY 2015, the deponent having acknowledged that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and the oath having been administered in the form and manner set out in Government Notice R1258 dated 21 July 1972, as amended by Government Notices R1648 dated 19 August 1977, R1428 dated 11 July 1980 and R774 dated 23 April 1982.
    • ---------------------------------------------------
      • COMMISSIONER OF OATHS
  • Designation&Area:------------------------------------Full Name:---------------------------------------------
  • Street Address:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Share this post...