Reflections on South Africa history.

Reflections on South Africa history, will cover selected edited blogs, extracted from the manuscript “Consider the Verdict”, bringing the visitors to Taste of Africa, exposure to what drives the owners, Cedric & Nettie de la Harpe.


Issued By:                 Still disadvantaged South Africans

MAIN CHARGE:      “Grand theft Economy”  through Economic Segregation:

Alternate Charge:             Racism:  Apartheid:


Persons who removed wealth from South Africa, through building their wealth, off any aspect, where the indigenous people, and their offspring, were excluded.

Trial Date:                              April 6, 2017.


Opening Statement:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

My name is Cedric, and I’ll be the lead prosecutor in this case.

I have experienced life in the ‘complainants’ cage’, and thanks to the African Spirit forces, I have visited with areas of our heritage that opened my mind to the problems created historically.

You are now, part of the proceedings, where you will see and hear, evidence in the trial of persons throughout the world, who stand accused of ‘grand theft economy’.

For years you, and I, would have heard the defence’s side of the story, you will have been told a lot of things, whether you are from the white group, or the black group, you may already believe, that those accused of ‘grand theft economy’, have a good defence.

You’re going to be told that ‘grand theft economy’ is a victimless crime. You’re going to hear many sad stories about both black and white persons, often confusing you about who the victim is.

You’re going to find out that the victims are victims of circumstance.

You’re going to feel sorry for these persons.

Members of the Jury, at times you will feel part of the accused group, the complainants believe you are part of that group, but we leave you, the option to identify your position.

“This personal position is critical to keep uppermost in your mind, while following the evidence, I have briefly made a comment when we first met, and I wish to repeat it as part of the proceedings.”

We should be aware, ‘the assets and property of no person in our country, is secure in this state of uncertainty’.

Two years back we witnessed Soweto youth, looting the Somali shops, triggered by the shooting of a young boy. The shooting was the trigger that caused the Land Mine to explode, spreading like a wild fire throughout Soweto.

Are there more ‘Land Mines’ that could trigger, when they trigger, how fast, how far, will the wild fires spread, and how much damage is possible, as the result?

The defence want you to hear their story, and feel sorry for them; because the defence wants you to believe that their crime is justified; justified because of circumstances.

But that’s not how the law works.

There’s a statue right outside the Court building across the road, of a woman holding a pair of scales. That statue is a beautiful woman—a woman named Justice. If you go and look at that statue, you’ll see that Justice is wearing a blindfold. It’s because Justice doesn’t care what the perpetrators look like. Justice doesn’t care about their sad story of having paid for everything, of having contributed all the money, contributed all the brains, and every other sad story that we have all heard, through the publications and hearsay, through the ages.

Justice cares only about the law.

I care about the law too. It’s has become my job, to uphold the law, on behalf of the complainants. And in this forum, I’m going to show you that the accused broke the law. They broke many, very clear laws, that today, are written in black and white.

Laws that everyone knows and understands today.

The complainants are of the opinion, that any Laws that conflict with accepted common-law and human rights, written by those who benefited economically, does not protect that ‘economy’ so removed from the complainants.

The perpetrators stole the complainants’ economy. It doesn’t matter why they stole that economy, or whether they claim that some legality allowed them to remove the economy from the complainants; it matters only that they stole that economy.

We will hear claims that the defendants bought the land from the complainants, or, dispossessed the land through fair conflict. Each incident would qualify for scrutiny, but we are not seeking this forum to rule on the different incidents.  It is the complainants contention that in both African Culture, and Western Culture, peace can only be achieved, if land dispossession through conflict allows for the conquered to participate fully in the ‘new world’, failing this, the conqueror will need to maintain control over the conquered, in such a manner that they are unable to rise.

As members of the jury, it’s your job to make sure that they pay for that crime. It’s your job to be blind, like Justice; because that’s the only way we can be sure that justice will be served.

I’m going to ask you to serve justice to the complainants at the end of this trial, and I know that you’re going to see that it gets done.

Because I’m going to prove that perpetrators broke the law, through economic segregation, and at the end of the day, that’s all that matters.

“Thank you Sirs, Members of the Jury”.


Cedric, this is USA-1, the opening statement puts us, and many others throughout the world, as part of the defendants.

Do you not think we should recuse ourselves from this case?

“Sirs, I have been challenged with this uncertainty for some time. It is not just whether the complainants will object to the ruling when we have finalised the case, but my greatest concern is how the complainants will view my presentation of this case.”

“I am a self-confessed racist, granted in recovery, but having lived through the Apartheid period, I have been directly involved in industry, and I have negatively impacted on many of the complainants’ family lives. I am not sure that I do not belong on the other side of the argument, but if you will allow me to continue, we will allow the objections to be considered, if either of us fails to satisfy the majority wishes.”

Cedric, do you feel any shame, guilt, responsibility, for the circumstances that the complainants face? 

“I do not know, Sir; it is difficult to answer.”

In my opinion, you have done nothing that you should be ashamed of.

“USA-1, it is not what I did, rather, what I did not do, that shames me.”

Pray tell us what these issues are, how is it possible that you can feel shame for what you did not do, during Apartheid. Do you not believe that you should elaborate on theses aspects, in order that both the complainants and accused can have insight into you? 

“USA-1, that may be tantamount to evidence in aggravation of a sentence that I may face, surely we should leave such question to follow sentencing?”

I suggest we adjourn for a few minutes to consider the implications of this statement?


 Consider the Verdict

'If you liked this post, say thanks by sharing it:'