inhumane acts

More than 45 South African Constitutional CIVIL RIGHT VIOLATIONS involving more than 109 people involved in alleged civil right violations against Simon Prophet as understood according to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996: 1) Right to dignity. 2) Right to be free from all forms of violence. 3) Right not to be tortured. 4) Right not to be treated in a cruel way. 5) Right not to be treated in an inhuman way. 6) Right not to be treated in a degrading way. 7) Right not to be punished in a cruel way. 8) Right not to be punished in a inhuman way. 9) Right not to be punished in a degrading way. 10) Right to not have their person searched. 11) Right not to have their home searched. 12) Right not to have their property searched. 13) Right not to have their possessions seized. 14) Right not to have their privacy infringed. 15) Right not to have their communications infringed. 16) Right to freedom of expression. 17) Right to academic freedom. 18) Right to freedom of scientific research. 19) Right to not be deprived of property. 20) Right to not be arbitrary deprived of property. 21) Right to compensation for property expropriated. 22) Right to compensation being just. 23) Right to compensation being equitable. 24) Right to housing. 25) Right to not be evicted from their home. 26) Right to access to information. 27) Right to remain silent when arrested. 28) Right not to be compelled to make confessions. 29) Right not to be compelled to make admissions. 30) Right to be brought before a court not later than 48 hours after the arrest. 31) Right to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay. 32) Right to be presumed innocent on arrest. 33) Right to remain silent during the criminal trial. 34) Right to be presumed innocent during trial. 35) Right not to testify during the proceedings. 36) Right not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence. 37) Right not to be tried twice for the same offence. 38) Right not to be convicted on evidence that is unlawful. 39) Right not to be discriminated against directly or indirectly on grounds of race. 40) The right to be protected from unfair discrimination. 41) Failure of the state to respect the Bill of Rights. 42) Failure of the state to protect the rights in the Bill of Rights. 43) Failure of the state to promote the rights in the Bill of Rights. 44) Failure of the state to fulfil the Rights in the Bill of Rights. 45) Failure of the state to recognize the Bill of Rights as being the cornerstone of democracy.

THE OPENING SCENE.

According to his own testimony under oath in the first criminal trial case number 16/79/01, the arresting officer, Johan Smit, had never heard of Simon Prophet before applying for the search warrant to search Simon Prophet's home.

Johan Smit was investigating Allan Hiebner on suspicion of dealing in scheduled substances. It is important to note here that Allan Hiebner was subsequently found to be not guilty of those allegations which means that the initial suspicion of Johan Smit against Alan Hiebner rested on a shaky foundation and has been shown to have been not valid.

Johan Smit has testified that it was these now proven to have been unfounded suspicions against Allan Hiebner that led Johan Smit to learn about the existence of someone called Simon Prophet.

Johan Smit has admitted that prior to these unfounded suspicions against Allan Hiebner, that Johan Smit had never heard about Simon Prophet and did not know anything about him.

With absolute complete lack of any knowledge about Simon Prophet and in the absolute absence of any tangible evidence of wrong doing on the part of Simon Prophet and also before confronting Allan Hiebner, Johan Smit, even before trying to establish any facts regarding Allan Hiebner, Johan Smit decided to confront Simon Prophet and made an unfounded and an irrational decision without fair reasonable basis to conclude that Simon Prophet was committing a criminal act.

Johan Smit has admitted under oath and was unable to produce any record of a single drug related complaint against Simon Prophet. Furthermore, on the record there is also not a single allegations of drug wrong doing against Simon Prophet but in spite of these facts attributed to Simon Prophet and coupled with a complete lack of just cause, Johan Smit unlawfully applied to Magistrate Swart for a search warrant to search Simon Prophet's home thereby openly violating Simon Prophet's right to privacy.

At this point in time on the 31^st of January 2001 the investigating officer, Johan Smit, with no probable cause and against Simon Prophet who has done no wrong and has done no harm to anyone and against whom not a single drug related complaint exists, Johan Smit takes it upon himself and makes a firm decision to violate Section 14(a), Section 14(b) and Section 14(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

ARTICLE 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

These are indisputable facts with which this story begins.

In a country with one of the world's highest crime statistics we must ask the question why it was not just one policeman who was called to investigate Simon Prophet but it was decided by someone to call forth a whole team of high ranking police detectives to investigate Simon Prophet?

In a time frame where thousands of criminal complaints were urgently crying out for police intervention involving crimes like murder, rape, robbery and other terrible crimes someone decides to put on hold all of those criminal complaints and go after Simon Prophet about whom not a single criminal complaint existed.

In terms of volume let's examine only one of those considered to be serious crimes that were calling for investigation.

Murder.

In 30 years under the ANC Party State of the Republic of South Africa rule we have the statistics to show us that 653 758 murders were committed in South Africa.

On a broad average about 60 people are murdered every day in South Africa and this figure does not include unreported cases.

So for some unknown reason it was decided by someone to put on hold hundreds of thousands of awaiting criminal complaints with literally hundreds of thousands of complainants screaming blue murder and to ignore all of those complaints and mobilize a substantial task force to engage against Simon Prophet, an innocent law abiding citizen against whom no allegations of criminal wrong doing existed.

Never has any drug complaint ever been leveled against Simon Prophet coming from within the ordinary population of South Africa.

While Judge Erasmus was torturing Simon Prophet there existed not even so much as an allegation against Simon Prophet of any criminal drug wrong doing coming from anyone within the general population.

Casting something called compassion at these events when viewed from even the most basic humanitarian perspective it becomes utterly astonishing when you add onto this that Simon Prophet was eventually found to be not guilty of the same crimes of which he was being accused.

Not a pardon mind you. An unconditional acquittal.

In the absence of a complaint and in the absence of even an allegation of wrong doing, the Party State of the Republic of South Africa has deemed it appropriate and desirable to employ scores of government agents and to spend tens of millions of South African Rands to terrorize Simon Prophet and to destroy his life beyond repair in a manner that exceeds and goes far beyond the boundaries and the constraints of what can be described or called a punishment.

“Why” is a question for another time but for now let us examine “what” has happened to Simon Prophet.

To call someone a drug dealer when they are not is a violation of that person's right to dignity.
“Notably, crimes against humanity should be considered as crimes both against humaneness and humankind. Such understanding influences the normative interpretation of ‘other inhumane acts’, which are predominantly acts that violate the human condition physically, mentally, and spiritually; particularly dignity-wise.” Extract from “Humaneness, Humankind and Crimes Against Humanity” by Bernhard Kuschni.
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to attacks upon his honour and reputation.”
To wrongfully engineer and unlawfully execute a judgement to punish Simon Prophet for being a drug dealer when he is not a drug dealer is a criminal offence and in the specific circumstances regarding Simon Prophet is described by international law as an act of torture.
Article 1(1) of Part 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27(1): “For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as punishing him for an act he is suspected of having committed.”
Both paragraph 1) and paragraph 4) above fall within the scope of Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute.
Both paragraph 1) and paragraph 4) above fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
One infringement of either of the above two alleged infringements can be considered to be serious.
To progress and to move further forward from paragraph 8, the matter concerning Simon Prophet involves not two but thousands of inhumane acts.
To take cognizance of paragraph 9 then there is no other option but to become encumbered within Article 7(1)(k) when there can be no reasonable logical or justifiable legal explanation for so many civil right violations.
With the combination of multiple civil right violations and with the sheer volume of such with so many high ranking members of the Party State of South Africa participating and colluding together against an innocent law abiding individual who has done no harm to anyone then there can be no other option but to conclude that this is an inexcusable attack without mercy against an individual who has been singled out to be hurt mentally, physically and spiritually for specific nefarious reasons which will become apparent within the next few paragraphs.
The Party State of South Africa has engaged the crimes of Apartheid and is therefore in violation of Aricle 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute.
The African National Congress of the Party State of South Africa has in its Parliament enacted more than 140 laws that discriminate specifically against white people for no other reason than that they are white.
The African National Congress wrongly seeks to justify paragraph 13 claiming somehow that apartheid against white people is merely apartheid in reverse is therefore justifiable.
Paragraph 13 must be seen for what it is which is full scale and full throttle criminal apartheid.
The Institute of Race Relations identifies around 142 race based laws currently operative, including policies like Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) and the Employment Equity Act of 1998, which aims to redress apartheid-era inequalities by prioritizing opportunities for Black South Africans.
Simon Prophet is claiming that he is a victim of the anti white apartheid agenda of the Party State of South Africa and this becomes the primary plausible and logical explanation for so many criminal and civil violations having been orchestrated against Simon Prophet.
While motive does not necessarily play a role in determining criminal allegations it calls for consideration when the motive itself can be identified as a crime against humanity within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and has been given special attention in its own right within Article 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute.
For further reading on race laws that engage Apartheid crimes by the Party State of the Republic of South Africa go to https://racelaw.co.za.
These apartheid laws and racial discrimination acts of racism and apartheid support and give reasonable credibility to Simon Prophet's charge that he has been the victim of apartheid and racial discrimination by the Party State of South Africa and that his whiteness has made him a target to be used in the way that he has.
In terms of being “useful” to the Party State of South Africa, Simon Prophet has explained this in paragraph 141 and paragraph 157 of his submissions to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court see Submission ID# be6960f8-5a68-4af5-b56c-d5e362f94bd1 submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on the 24^th of October 2024.
Deprivation of property without compensation is an international violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Party State of South Africa's disregard to this absolute law and inalienable right of every living man and woman was brought to the attention of the Prosecutor by Simon Prophet in paragraph 151, paragraph 152 and paragraph 153 of Simon Prophet's additional submissions to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court submitted by email on the 18^th of November 2024.
Subsequent to the submissions mentioned in paragraph 22 then in February 2025 President Ramaphosa of the Party State of South Africa has signed this violation of law into an Act of Parliament that is enforceable so that any citizen can now be deprived of property without compensation.
New legislation requires that race viz. the colour of your skin, be included as part of the details in any property transactions.
President Donald Trump of the United States of America has taken exception to this and other inhumane acts committed by the Party State of South Africa and President Donald Trump has consequently brought forth allegations that “terrible things” are happening in South Africa including “massive human right violations”.
Looking into the basket of "egregious" actions being commissioned by the Party State of South Africa, the White House has indicated that refugee status is to be granted to white South African minority groups who have been victims of racial and other attacks.
Starting as far back as 2001 Simon Prophet can confirm that yes indeed the Party State of South Africa has been doing “terrible things” to Simon Prophet and continues to be in denial of its unlawful attitude and actions against Simon Prophet without shame or concern and the Party State of South Africa is continuing to act without fear of reprisals as if calmly relaxing in a bubble of indemnity.
Let us not mince our words and let us make no mistake and let us be clear about the facts as they are; the African National Congress of the Party State of South Africa is a criminal enterprise.
The South African Judiciary has been captured and is being manipulated and is under the control of the same African National Congress and does not operate independently from this criminal enterprise.
Before audiences of hundreds of thousands of spectators with hundreds of millions of international television audiences from around the world, Julius Malema has been repetitively and consistently calling for the murder of white people in South Africa.
To publicly call on black people to murder white people is undeniably a criminal act.
When AfriForum complained to the South African Supreme Court of Appeal and complained to the South African Constitutional Court then these courts stirred not and did nothing to bring Julius Malema to book.
In effect what these courts are doing is that both the South African Supreme Court of Appeal and the South African Constitutional Court have applauded and cheered on the criminal deeds of Julius Malema.
When the highest court in the land of South Africa condones the murder of white people then there is no point for a white man to approach the same court with a complaint that he has been tortured.
This being true and it is true then Simon Prophet has no alternative but to seek out justice in the International Criminal Court.
The Republic of South Africa has domesticated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) in terms of the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act, Act No. 27 of 2002, which came into operation on 18 July 2002.
South Africa has been a signatory of the Rome Statute since its inception so there can be no excuse that the Party State of South Africa is in some way not bound to obey the same laws contained in the Rome Statute.
Torture is a crime against humanity and according to the Rome Statute torture is a punishable offence.
By virtue of the facts as they are then the International Criminal Court has no other option but to bring the matter before the Judges in order for this matter to be resolved according to what the law dictates.
Under proper lawful scrutiny no Party State is entitled to engage and seek out ways to punish an individual for a suspected crime of which the individual has been found to be not guilty.
There is no lawful premise whereby an individual who has no criminal record can be punished on grounds of criminal suspicion when the suspicion is determined on nothing more than hearsay and speculation.
There stands nothing in any upright and justifiable law that allows for an innocent man to be punished by being deprived of his property without compensation.
It can be described as nothing less than criminal enrichment when as in paragraph 42, the proceeds of the sale of that individual's property be consumed by the state.
Paragraph 40, paragraph 41 and paragraph 42 all fall within Section 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute.
For governmental behaviours as suggested in paragraph 40, paragraph 41 and paragraph 42 to become actively played out in real life this then can be interpreted by the International Court as nothing less than inhumane acts.

A whole lot more still coming yet to be revealed so get ready and please be patient but be sure to buckle up for the rough ride ahead...

...TO BE CONTINUED...