Latest news with #DefenceAct
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Taxpayers foot legal bill for SANDF members accused of DPCI investigator's murder
Defence Minister Angie Motshekga says her department will continue to provide legal assistance to 12 SANDF members charged with several charges, including the murder of DPCI senior investigator, Lieutenant Colonel Frans Mathipa, who was shot dead in 2023 while probing allegations the accused in the abduction of an Ethiopian businessman and suspected ISIS leader from the Mall of Africa. Image: SAPS Taxpayers are coughing up the legal costs for the 12 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) members who are facing multiple charges, including the murder of Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation's (DPCI) senior investigator, Lieutenant-Colonel Frans Mathipa. Mathipa was killed while he was investigating the abduction of two Ethiopian men, Abdella Hussein Abadiga and his bodyguard, Kadir Jemal Abotese, who were abducted and allegedly taken to Zwartkop Military Base, and their whereabouts are still unknown. This was disclosed by Defence Minister Angie Motshekga when she was responding to parliamentary questions from DA MP Chris Hattingh and Maliyakhe Shelembe. Motshekga said the legal costs were paid on the basis of the Defence Act which provides for legal representation for SANDF members. 'The SANDF has the authority to provide legal assistance to its members in certain circumstances. The 12 members of the SANDF facing charges related to the death of Lt Col Frans Mathipa are receiving State-funded legal assistance in accordance with the Defence Act, 2022. This assistance was made available from the outset of the legal proceedings,' she said. Asked about the legal cost incurred to date in providing to the accused SANDF members, Motshekga said the defence could not confirm the total costs as the court case was currently ongoing and legal proceedings still in progress. 'The department will continue to provide the necessary support and the final costs will be determined once the matter is concluded.' She would provide the estimated cost that may be incurred should the case proceed to full criminal trial. 'The cost will depend on various factors, including the duration of the trial, the number of witnesses, and the complexity of the legal arguments. As such it is not feasible to provide a reliable estimate of the total costs, including legal fees and other relevant expenses, at this stage,' Motshekga said. The members of the SANDF special operations unit were each granted R10 000 bail by the Randburg Magistrate's Court following their arrest last month following Mathipa's death in August 2023. The National Prosecuting Authority has indicated that it will appeal the court's decision to grant bail to the SANDF members facing serious charges that include murder, kidnapping, fraud, obstructing the administration of justice, making false statements under oath and theft of a motor vehicle. Asked if SANDF has a framework to guide the provision of legal assistance to members charged with serious criminal offences, Motshekga said the process of acquiring legal representation at the State's expense starts with an application by an individual to the department's legal services division. 'The request includes an acknowledgement and undertaking by the member that any expense incurred maybe recouped if it is subsequently determined that the member did not qualify for legal representation at State expense.' However, she said the SANDF policy on legal assistance may differ depending whether the proceedings are held in military or civilian courts. Motshekga said members facing charges in military courts may be entitled to legal representation provided by the SANDF's military defence counsel. 'For proceedings in civilian courts, the SANDF's members, guided by the Defence Act, may be provided with legal assistance under certain circumstances, such as when the member's actions were taken in the course of their duties.' She would not say how much her department spent on legal assistance for SANDF members over the past five years. Motshekga, however, indicated that SANDF has received 26 requests for legal assistance at State's expense during the past five years.
The Advertiser
21-07-2025
- The Advertiser
Veteran's disgust at fake war medals, sold readily on Temu and eBay
A Vietnam War veteran felt disgusted after discovering replica military medals, many of them almost identical to the originals, were being sold and were readily available to the public. Replicas of medals awarded to those who served are widely available through online retailers, including Temu and eBay, and at numerous museums and dealers throughout the country. The sale or purchase of military medals is legal in Australia, although it is illegal for a person to falsely represent themselves as a veteran by wearing medals in public. Read more from The Senior Greg Carter served 12 months in Vietnam with the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He has the full bar of medals that were received by all Vietnam veterans, as well as a Vietnam Combat Badge. He said he was disturbed by the knowledge that medals designed to honour those who served are available to the general public. "I, with others, had to earn that [right to wear medals] by being in a war zone," he said. 'To see other people who have not even done any military service wearing it, to me, it just diminishes the worth of the badge or the medal to start with. "Numerous veterans and [members of] the public I have talked with are disgusted this is happening." Mr Carter, of Portland in Victoria, first became aware that replica medals were being sold after finding a range of medals in the gift shop of a museum in Western Australia. "I said to the lady behind the counter, 'Can anybody buy these?' And she said, 'Yes, and I said, I don't think that's right'." A spokesperson from RSL Australia said there is nothing that can be done to stop retailers selling the medals. "Ideally, seeking proof of service or entitlement to medals would be sought," they said. It is not illegal to buy or sell replica military medals in Australia, although they must not be represented as the genuine article or use the Commonwealth Coat of Arms or other Defence emblems without authorisation. The Department of Defence encourages the purchase of replica medals by veterans whose originals were lost or stolen, or who want to preserve their originals. It is illegal for a person to wear military medals, or replicas of medals that were not conferred to them under the 1903 Defence Act. Wearing medals to represent a deceased relative is allowed, but medals should be worn on the right-hand side, as opposed to veterans, who wear their medals on the left. Mr Carter says he has contacted 22 different companies, all of whom were willing to sell him multiple medals without verifying who he was or why he wanted them. "My issue is the fact that the people who buy them probably have got no idea about what the medals firstly mean, and secondly, there's a protocol for wearing them." Mr Carter feels retailers should be forced to inform buyers of the laws and protocols surrounding the wearing of replica medals. Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE. A Vietnam War veteran felt disgusted after discovering replica military medals, many of them almost identical to the originals, were being sold and were readily available to the public. Replicas of medals awarded to those who served are widely available through online retailers, including Temu and eBay, and at numerous museums and dealers throughout the country. The sale or purchase of military medals is legal in Australia, although it is illegal for a person to falsely represent themselves as a veteran by wearing medals in public. Read more from The Senior Greg Carter served 12 months in Vietnam with the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He has the full bar of medals that were received by all Vietnam veterans, as well as a Vietnam Combat Badge. He said he was disturbed by the knowledge that medals designed to honour those who served are available to the general public. "I, with others, had to earn that [right to wear medals] by being in a war zone," he said. 'To see other people who have not even done any military service wearing it, to me, it just diminishes the worth of the badge or the medal to start with. "Numerous veterans and [members of] the public I have talked with are disgusted this is happening." Mr Carter, of Portland in Victoria, first became aware that replica medals were being sold after finding a range of medals in the gift shop of a museum in Western Australia. "I said to the lady behind the counter, 'Can anybody buy these?' And she said, 'Yes, and I said, I don't think that's right'." A spokesperson from RSL Australia said there is nothing that can be done to stop retailers selling the medals. "Ideally, seeking proof of service or entitlement to medals would be sought," they said. It is not illegal to buy or sell replica military medals in Australia, although they must not be represented as the genuine article or use the Commonwealth Coat of Arms or other Defence emblems without authorisation. The Department of Defence encourages the purchase of replica medals by veterans whose originals were lost or stolen, or who want to preserve their originals. It is illegal for a person to wear military medals, or replicas of medals that were not conferred to them under the 1903 Defence Act. Wearing medals to represent a deceased relative is allowed, but medals should be worn on the right-hand side, as opposed to veterans, who wear their medals on the left. Mr Carter says he has contacted 22 different companies, all of whom were willing to sell him multiple medals without verifying who he was or why he wanted them. "My issue is the fact that the people who buy them probably have got no idea about what the medals firstly mean, and secondly, there's a protocol for wearing them." Mr Carter feels retailers should be forced to inform buyers of the laws and protocols surrounding the wearing of replica medals. Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE. A Vietnam War veteran felt disgusted after discovering replica military medals, many of them almost identical to the originals, were being sold and were readily available to the public. Replicas of medals awarded to those who served are widely available through online retailers, including Temu and eBay, and at numerous museums and dealers throughout the country. The sale or purchase of military medals is legal in Australia, although it is illegal for a person to falsely represent themselves as a veteran by wearing medals in public. Read more from The Senior Greg Carter served 12 months in Vietnam with the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He has the full bar of medals that were received by all Vietnam veterans, as well as a Vietnam Combat Badge. He said he was disturbed by the knowledge that medals designed to honour those who served are available to the general public. "I, with others, had to earn that [right to wear medals] by being in a war zone," he said. 'To see other people who have not even done any military service wearing it, to me, it just diminishes the worth of the badge or the medal to start with. "Numerous veterans and [members of] the public I have talked with are disgusted this is happening." Mr Carter, of Portland in Victoria, first became aware that replica medals were being sold after finding a range of medals in the gift shop of a museum in Western Australia. "I said to the lady behind the counter, 'Can anybody buy these?' And she said, 'Yes, and I said, I don't think that's right'." A spokesperson from RSL Australia said there is nothing that can be done to stop retailers selling the medals. "Ideally, seeking proof of service or entitlement to medals would be sought," they said. It is not illegal to buy or sell replica military medals in Australia, although they must not be represented as the genuine article or use the Commonwealth Coat of Arms or other Defence emblems without authorisation. The Department of Defence encourages the purchase of replica medals by veterans whose originals were lost or stolen, or who want to preserve their originals. It is illegal for a person to wear military medals, or replicas of medals that were not conferred to them under the 1903 Defence Act. Wearing medals to represent a deceased relative is allowed, but medals should be worn on the right-hand side, as opposed to veterans, who wear their medals on the left. Mr Carter says he has contacted 22 different companies, all of whom were willing to sell him multiple medals without verifying who he was or why he wanted them. "My issue is the fact that the people who buy them probably have got no idea about what the medals firstly mean, and secondly, there's a protocol for wearing them." Mr Carter feels retailers should be forced to inform buyers of the laws and protocols surrounding the wearing of replica medals. Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE. A Vietnam War veteran felt disgusted after discovering replica military medals, many of them almost identical to the originals, were being sold and were readily available to the public. Replicas of medals awarded to those who served are widely available through online retailers, including Temu and eBay, and at numerous museums and dealers throughout the country. The sale or purchase of military medals is legal in Australia, although it is illegal for a person to falsely represent themselves as a veteran by wearing medals in public. Read more from The Senior Greg Carter served 12 months in Vietnam with the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He has the full bar of medals that were received by all Vietnam veterans, as well as a Vietnam Combat Badge. He said he was disturbed by the knowledge that medals designed to honour those who served are available to the general public. "I, with others, had to earn that [right to wear medals] by being in a war zone," he said. 'To see other people who have not even done any military service wearing it, to me, it just diminishes the worth of the badge or the medal to start with. "Numerous veterans and [members of] the public I have talked with are disgusted this is happening." Mr Carter, of Portland in Victoria, first became aware that replica medals were being sold after finding a range of medals in the gift shop of a museum in Western Australia. "I said to the lady behind the counter, 'Can anybody buy these?' And she said, 'Yes, and I said, I don't think that's right'." A spokesperson from RSL Australia said there is nothing that can be done to stop retailers selling the medals. "Ideally, seeking proof of service or entitlement to medals would be sought," they said. It is not illegal to buy or sell replica military medals in Australia, although they must not be represented as the genuine article or use the Commonwealth Coat of Arms or other Defence emblems without authorisation. The Department of Defence encourages the purchase of replica medals by veterans whose originals were lost or stolen, or who want to preserve their originals. It is illegal for a person to wear military medals, or replicas of medals that were not conferred to them under the 1903 Defence Act. Wearing medals to represent a deceased relative is allowed, but medals should be worn on the right-hand side, as opposed to veterans, who wear their medals on the left. Mr Carter says he has contacted 22 different companies, all of whom were willing to sell him multiple medals without verifying who he was or why he wanted them. "My issue is the fact that the people who buy them probably have got no idea about what the medals firstly mean, and secondly, there's a protocol for wearing them." Mr Carter feels retailers should be forced to inform buyers of the laws and protocols surrounding the wearing of replica medals. Share your thoughts in the comments below, or send a Letter to the Editor by CLICKING HERE.
RTÉ News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
What is Ireland's 'Triple Lock' and why is it in the news again?
Analysis: For 65 years the 'Triple Lock' has determined when Irish solders are sent abroad, but new legislation could change how it works The Government has proposed new legislation that will change how Ireland decides to send soldiers abroad to serve on international peacekeeping missions. The Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025 will remove the Triple Lock when the Defence Forces are serving as part of an international force. But what is the 'Triple Lock' is, how does it compare to other countries' approach to sending troops abroad, and what are the arguments for and against changing the policy? What is the triple lock? The 'Triple Lock' describes how Ireland decides to send Defence Forces Personnel overseas to serve as part of peace keeping or peace enforcement operations. It involves UN approval, a decision by Government and a vote in the Dáil. The term 'Triple Lock' does not appear in any legislation but does adequately describe the legal process used to allow Irish overseas missions since the passage of the Defence Act (1960). Why do we have it? When Ireland first sent Irish soldiers abroad as part of the UN observation mission in Lebanon in 1958, the Government did so without a vote in the Dáíl based on the assumption that it had the legal authority to do so. Following this, the Defence Act (1960) put in place the requirements we now call the 'Triple Lock'. Later changes to the Act in 1993 extended the type of possible missions to 'peace enforcement' rather than just 'peace keeping' and the 2006 Amendment updated the language on UN authorisation and outlined the other circumstances when troops could be deployed for training, consular protection etc. The 2006 Amendment also clarified the necessity for a government decision in the process of authorising a deployment. From RTÉ Radio 1's The Late Debate, Why is the government proposing changes to the Triple Lock? How has it worked? Since 1958, Ireland has had a continuous presence on UN authorised missions. On no occasion was Dáil approval withheld for a mission. Since 1990, Ireland has engaged in 14 international missions but only three times was a formal vote held. In each case, approval of participation was granted by the Dáil. In 2003, the EU launched its first overseas military mission, EUFOR Concordia in what was then known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Ireland was unable to participate as China vetoed the UNSC resolution approving the mission. How does it compare to how other countries make decisions on sending troops abroad? Ireland is not unique in requiring parliamentary approval for an international deployment. 14 other EU member states have similar requirements. In most cases, approval is granted, however there have been some notable exceptions. Both votes on deployment to Iraq were only narrowly passed in Denmark. In the UK, David Cameron's Conservative government lost a vote on deployment to Syria in 2013 and Barack Obama lost a similar vote on Libya in the House of Representatives in 2011. Ireland is unusual in two ways. One is that most countries have time limits on approvals. In other words, a mandate is granted for a specific period and then subject to review either on an annual basis (e.g. Spain) or on a mission specific basis (e.g Germany). Ireland on the other hand has no formal mechanism for the Dáil to review a decision to deploy troops on an international mission or indeed bring them home, for example the UNIFIL deployment in 1978 was only voted on once, although that deployment remained in place until 2001. Similarly, the decision to withdraw participation from the UN observer mission in the Golan Heights (UNDOF) was made by the Government without a vote. Secondly, Ireland is unique in requiring UN approval for a deployment. No other country has formally limited their decision making in this way, though in practice Austria has only deployed on external missions with UN approval. Germany on the other hand restricts deployments abroad to participation in collective security arrangements such as UN or NATO operations. Why is the government proposing to change it? The government is proposing to make two changes to the existing approach to Ireland's deployment. They want to remove the requirement for UN approval and to increase the number of troops that can be deployed without a Dáil vote from 12 to 50. The argument the government have put forward is based on their concern that as the UN Security Council (UNSC) has become more dysfunctional, Ireland should not be held back by the permanent members of the UNSC. They cite as evidence that no new mandate has been approved by the Security Council since 2014 and the increasing tensions at the Security Council for mandate renewals of existing missions. For example, EUFOR Althea, which Ireland has participated in since its deployment in 2004, is currently operating under an annually renewed mandate. Russia has become increasingly critical of the mission and may veto a future renewal. The mission would likely continue with the consent of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina but in the absence of a UNSC mandate, Ireland would be forced to withdraw. What are the arguments against changing it? Opposition to the change has focussed on two aspects. One is that they reject the idea that the UNSC is a constraint on Ireland's participation in peacekeeping missions. They argue that following the 2006 amendment to the Defence Act, a UN General Assembly resolution would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Triple Lock. They also point out that in practical terms, EUFOR Concordia remains the only example of Ireland being unable to participate in an international mission due to the absence of a UN resolution and therefore the Government's concerns about this are overstated. Secondly, the issue is framed in terms of Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. The argument is that the UN element of the Triple Lock ensures that Ireland cannot take part in other foreign military adventures such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and that removing the UN requirement is a step towards ending Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Though it is worth noting that a change to the triple lock would have no effect on the Constitutional provision that prohibits Ireland from joining a 'Common European Defence'. The opponents to change also hold that a UN mandate, while necessary, is not a sufficient condition for Ireland to participate in international missions. Sinn Féín have supported Ireland's participation in UNIFIL but opposed other deployments. Likewise, both Labour and the Green party have voted in favour of deployments but have opposed specific missions such as the missions in Chad and Mali. Aontú and the Social Democrats have also opposed specific missions even when a UNSC mandate was in place. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, The history of Irish neutrality with historian and Professor of Modern Irish History at UCD Diarmuid Ferriter How will the government decide on future peacekeeping missions? The governments proposal is to remove the UN element of the 'Triple Lock'. However the proposed bill still requires the deployment as part of an International Force to "operate for the purposes of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter." The definition of 'International force' in the bill refers to the UN, the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE), the EU and "any other regional arrangement or body that operates in a manner consistent with the UN charter and international law." The proposed bill also clarifies that the Government can replace troops serving on an international mission that has been approved by the Dáil without a further vote. As we debate the future of Ireland's approach to deployments we might be best served by increasing the formal role of the Dáil in mission oversight after deployment, by requiring regular renewals of mandates and engagement with the mission command with the relevant Dáil committee on Defence. This would empower both government and opposition to ensure that Ireland's participation in international missions complies with Irish law, foreign policy and values.
Irish Daily Mirror
09-05-2025
- Irish Daily Mirror
Army officer fined €5,000 for "degrading treatment" of recruits in mock trial
An army officer who was involved in staging a mock trial that subjected a number of trainee soldiers to 'degrading treatment' at a military camp in Cork has appeared before a real-life military court over the incident. The officer, who holds the rank of lieutenant, was fined a total of 34 days' pay – equivalent to a sum of just under €5,000 – after pleading guilty at a general court martial to six breaches of military law while acting as a training officer for a First Brigade NCO course at a number of military locations in Cork two years ago. A military judge said the incident in relation to the mock trial demonstrated 'a culture that is not aligned' with the values of the Defence Forces and was the result of 'an unacceptable group dynamic' that had existed before the officer became involved in the training course. The identity of the accused is not being published at the request of the judge, Colonel Michael Campion, made during a sentencing hearing at the Military Justice Centre in McKee Barracks in Dublin. The officer admitted committing six offences of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, contrary to Section 168 of the Defence Act. They included a charge that he participated in a mock trial which resulted in the unlawful detention of three trainees at Lynch Camp, Kilworth, Co Cork on May 18, 2023. He also admitted consuming alcohol while on duty on the same date and location. Colonel Campion observed that the three trainees had been subjected to 'degrading treatment' by being placed in a mock prisoner-of-war cage, although he accepted that the accused was not the 'prime mover' in the incident. Separately, the officer pleaded guilty to conducting unauthorised drills with students at the Naval Base in Haulbowline, Co Cork on June 14, 2023 as well as consuming alcohol while on exercise. He also pleaded guilty to permitting subordinate instructors to consume alcohol and failing to prevent them from conducting manoeuvres after consuming alcohol at Fort Davis, Whitegate, Co Cork on June 15, 2023. The judge said the unauthorised drills had no legitimate training purpose and it appeared the students participating in them had been chosen because they were struggling with aspects of the course. Colonel Campion remarked that such trainees deserved the support of the officer 'instead of treatment of that kind'. He said such behaviour seriously undermined morale, negatively impacted on the reputation of the Defence Forces and created difficulties with the recruitment and retention of staff. The judge said the defendant's actions were not 'one-off' as they involved three separate incidents over the space of about a month. Addressing the accused, Colonel Campion said he had considered dismissal from the Defence Forces as a punishment for conduct he described as 'utterly unacceptable'. However, the judge acknowledged that the officer had entered an early guilty plea and had cooperated with a military investigation, as well as apologising for his actions and showing insight and remorse. Colonel Campion noted that he had no previous record of indiscipline and said he was impressed by character references and support offered by his senior officers. The judge also observed that the accused had missed out on promotion to the rank of captain because of the court martial as well as not being selected for overseas trips, which also had financial consequences for him. Colonel Campion said the charges were not criminal offences but the Defence Forces was different from civilian life and disciplinary breaches were far more serious when they were committed in a military environment. He observed that the maintenance of discipline was 'of the essence in a military force' and the Defence Forces was dependent on its members behaving for its 'effectiveness, integrity and reputation'. The judge claimed aggravating factors in the case were the accused's rank and experience and his knowledge of the standards expected of someone who had served three years as an officer. Colonel Campion observed that the lieutenant had set 'an appalling bad example' to his subordinates and his conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline 'in a very real way'. He said the officer had failed to demonstrate the standard of leadership expected as well as a duty of care and showing trainees dignity and respect even in a robust training environment. However, the judge said he believed it was a case of appalling bad judgement on the part of the accused rather than anything more malign. Noting that the accused came from a family with a long military history, Colonel Campion said such a background would 'accentuate your sense of shame'. The judge allowed the defendant to pay the fine in monthly instalments of €286.66 over a 17-month period.
