A critique of Moroka J�s abolition of the delict of Adultery
Columns
Ndulamo Anthony Morima
EAGLE WATCH
In a recent land mark judgement in Precious Kgaje v Oreneile Phindile Mhotsha, CVHFT-000237/17, Moroka J made two Orders which may, unless the judgment is appealed and quashed by the Court of Appeal, forever change Batswana’s family institution.
Moroka J’s judgment is undoubtedly of historical moment in our jurisprudence. His Orders were short, yet far reaching. His first Order was that “the delict of adultery is no longer consistent with the boni mores (good morals) of contemporary Botswana.” In other words, according to Moroka J, Batswana’s general sense of justice and legal convictions today view adultery favorably and condone it and such evolution of Batswana’s culture should be reflected in our law.
The second was that “the actio iniuriarum based on adultery which affords the innocent spouse a claim for contumelia (insult to the self-esteem) and loss of consortium ( comfort and society) is no longer wrongful and thus no longer available as part of our law.” In resolving the question whether the delict of adultery is still valid given the change in the boni mores of society, Moroka J answered in the negative influenced, inter alia, by the fact that many countries including England, Namibia, South Africa and Seychelles have abolished the delict of adultery.
Moroka J was also persuaded by the argument that highly personal relations should not be regulated by the law but should be left to the sphere of ethical self-regulation of the community through unwritten norms and values. According to Moroka J it is the quality of the citizen, his or her integrity and voluntary respect for the marital institution and not the fear of sanction that sustains tranquility in the marriage.
Moroka J cites the Setswana proverb which says ‘matlo a na otlhe’, translated to mean all houses have leaky roofs, to demonstrate that Batswana accept adultery since the proverb is often used to counsel the innocent spouse in cases of adultery. This, he says, shows that while Batswana condemn adultery family preservation is encouraged as opposed to impulsive breakdown through divorce, stating that marriage is a union of forgivers.
He also cites the Setswana saying ‘Nyatsi e tiisa lelwapa’, translated to mean that an adulterer strengthens a marriage, to demonstrate Batswana’s tolerance of adultery. But, in admitting that Batswana regard adultery as wrong he states that “this is by no means an encouragement of an otherwise reprehensible conduct but an expression of attitudes towards it.” Before critiquing the judgment, it is apposite that I address some of the things that have been said about the judgment itself and the judge generally.
Some have wondered why one person, a judge, can change a law, arguing that only Parliament should have the preserve to make and change law. Judges have the power to develop the common law provided they do so in a manner that promotes the spirit, purport and objects of the Constitution, and in accordance with public policy. I, however, suggest that the law be amended to provide that decisions of the lower courts which have constitutional implications, as this one does, should be referred to a panel of three judges to confirm it before they have effect.
Others have, while accepting that Moroka J had the power to change the law, argued that he became overzealous and considered matters that were not before him, arguing that it is as if he had been waiting for the case to make a land mark judgment for his own legacy. At paragraph 1 of the judgment, the judge states that “the Defendant has invited this court to evaluate the constitutional and common law validity of the third party delictual actio iniuriarum claim based on adultery pertaining to a civil marriage, in the light of the changing mores of our society.”
The question is: did the judge do that and nothing more? Though one is not privy to the evidence led during the trial and the heads of arguments submitted by the parties, one wonders at the judge’s conclusion that Batswana’s morals have changed to the extent that they no longer consider adultery as wrongful. There is no reference, in the judgment, of evidence led during the trial which supports such a conclusion. There is also no reference to any empirical report or survey which supports such a conclusion.
Moroka J also, at paragraphs 53 and 54 of the judgment, refers to reasons for the support of the remedy and reasons against, which he says are, in part, from the readings of legal and sociological books and material, but such books and material are not referenced in the judgment. It has also been asked whether Moroka J’s judgment abolished the delict of adultery for both civil and customary marriages. Some argue that it only abolished adultery in civil marriages because the case dealt with the actio iniuriarum based on adultery which relates to civil marriages and not customary marriages.
If that interpretation is correct, does it mean the claim is still available for those who contracted their marriage under customary law? If that is the case, won’t we see those who are in support of the continued outlawing of adultery opting for customary marriages? But, some say because the judgment said the actio iniuriarum based on adultery which affords the innocent spouse a claim for contumelia and loss of consortium is no longer wrongful and thus no longer available as part of our law means that it applies to both customary and civil marriages because they are both ‘part of our law.’
But, was the issue before the court adultery in customary marriages? Did the judge make his enquiry in relation to customary marriages? Now, back to the substantive critique of Moroka J’s judgment. The question is: was Moroka J right in holding that there is no longer need for the continued existence of the delict of adultery.
Mandla J, in DE v RH [2015] ZACC 18, was right in concluding that, in essence, this is the only issue to be determined. The question is whether or not in contemporary Botswana the act of adultery meets the element of wrongfulness in order for delictual liability to attach. In determining whether or not the act complained of is wrongful the Court applies the criterion of reasonableness.
As was held in the case of Delange v Costa 1989 (2) SA 857 (A), this is an objective test which requires the conduct complained of to be tested against the prevailing norms of society in order to determine whether such conduct can be classified as wrongful. Since the element of wrongfulness is cardinal for delictual liability, by holding that the delict of adultery is no longer consistent with the boni mores of contemporary Botswana Moroka J is effectively saying adultery no longer meets the element of wrongfulness for delictual liability to attach. I disagree.
Moroka J is saying the majority of Batswana no longer find adultery wrong and distasteful; they find it right. This cannot be correct. Below I give examples of practices and sayings that demonstrate that adultery is as much abominable for Batswana today as it was in the past. In Tswana culture, when newlyweds go through ‘go laiwa’, that is, when they are counselled by elders on how to conduct themselves in marriage one of the things that is emphasized is faithfulness to their spouse.
In Setswana, the third party adulterer is called Nyatsi, which is from the word go nyatsega which means something which is to be belittled. I disagree with Moroka J’s statement that the fact that the Childrens’ Act, Cap.28:04 does not permit discrimination of children born of adultery means that in Botswana both adultery and its fruits are no longer regarded with sort of inflexible moral fundamentalism.
Firstly, the Childrens’ Act was meant to protect the innocent child, not the adulterer. Secondly, despite the Childrens’ Act’s existence children born of adultery still face discrimination. Thirdly, even in cases where such children face no discrimination it does not mean that the adultery itself is condoned. Moroka J has held that the continued existence of the delict of adultery does not protect the marital institution, holding that it is only the parties themselves who, through fidelity, should protect their marriage.
I disagree with the judge’s assertion that adultery has nothing to do with the culpability of the third party and that it is the adulterous spouse that would have pierced the veil of unavailability. Granted, married persons should themselves abide by their marital vows. But, are we saying a third party who, knowing full well that a person is married, gets involved in an adulterous relationship with such person does no wrong and should not suffer any recrimination?
I agree with Moroka J that the fact that the actio iniuriarum of adultery renders the guilty spouse beyond the reach of the law despite clear culpability is an anomaly and that there are instances where the guilty spouse assists the third party to pay damages. But, should such anomaly warrant abolition of the actio iniuriarum of adultery itself?
Shouldn’t Moroka J have developed the common law to provide that both the third party and guilty spouse are liable in damages to the innocent spouse? Of course some would argue that that would be of no effect because the guilty spouse would pay from the joint estate. I take the point, but a provision could be made that the guilty spouse pays from sources other than the joint estate. But, can a spouse married in community of property own anything not part of the joint estate? No.
Or, a provision could be made that a guilty spouse’ share of the joint estate is reduced, and such would have consequence in the division of the joint estate during divorce. But, what if the spouses never divorce? Moroka J states that no threat of sanction may protect the marriage from a spouse who is no longer willing to live by the marriage vows. That is not wholly correct. Some marriages have been saved by the fear of the delict of adultery.
Imagine a situation where, as a result of this judgment, adulterers would fear no legal repercussion! It would result in anarchy, the so-called passion killings, murder-suicides and all manner of immorality. Moroka J argues that because of the principle of Botho which is based on self-respect, self-restraint and respect for others and sacred institutions, Batswana respect the law not out of fear of sanctions, but out of self-respect.
But, the very Batswana, governed by the very Botho still commit rape, murder, theft, e.t.c and laws exist for punishment, deterrence, reform, rehabilitation and even retribution. Where is their self-respect and self-restraint in such cases? Why should we only talk of self-respect and self-restraint in the case of marriage?
I am aware that there is an adage which says ‘monna ke selepe oa hapaanelwa’, loosely translated to mean a man is an axe who is exchanged, which has been used to justify adultery, stating that it means that like an axe which is exchanged a man or husband can be shared by women. This interpretation is erroneous. Tradition has it that the adage means that a man should be of assistance in the community so that even unmarried women or families without a male should not suffer when it comes to male related duties when there is a male in the community.
I am also aware of the adage which says ‘monna ga a botswe ko a tswang teng’, loosely translated to mean that a man or husband is not asked where he is from, which is interpreted to mean that a man or husband can leave the home or even spend a night away from home, even for adulterous escapades, and he should not be asked where he is from.
This too is an erroneous interpretation. The correct interpretation is that a responsible man or husband always communicates his whereabouts or is, if away from home, does so for the family’s good such that there is no need for him to be asked about his whereabouts. Even today, in some cultures a guilty spouse is regarded as not only having defiled his or her body, but also brought insult to the innocent spouse, and, as a pre-condition for forgiveness, is required to compensate the innocent spouse by giving him or her a cow. In some cultures, a cleansing ceremony is performed to cleanse the adulterer of the evil and filth that is adultery.
Moroka J canvassed the changing societal norms mainly in terms of such new forms of sexual indiscretions as sexting and cybersex which are neither regarded as moral by the majority of Batswana nor are they forms of adultery. Besides, these sexual indiscretions were not before the court. Neither was the issue of adultery with a prostitute. What was before the court was adultery in relation to an ordinary married person and a third party.
Moroka J’s argument that the fact that the lurid details of adultery have become a source of amusement in tabloids and social media platforms means that adultery has ceased to be regarded with shock and revulsion cannot be sustained. On the contrary, it shows that it is not condoned, hence the desire to name and shame the culprits. The same applies to his argument that the right to privacy, entrenched in section 9 of the Constitution, which recognizes that human beings have a right to a sphere of intimacy and autonomy that should be protected from invasion, should be used to protect adulterers.
Moroka J talked of consortium and society of the spouses, today, being lost to multiple sources and adultery being just a small percentage of these threats. But, that was not the issue before him. The issue before him was consortium and society of the spouses lost through adultery.
When the CoA, in Mabote and another v Mabote [1999] 1 BLR 386 (HC), approved Watermeyer JA’s views that “…in modern times and in the so-called permissive age there is now no inherent improbability per se about two persons in love, although not married to each other, committing adultery…”, it did not say Batswana no longer regarded adultery as wrongful. It was merely commenting on the increased existence of the vice.
Also, when the CoA said “…there can be no doubt that in many modern societies adultery no longer carries the stigma that it did 50 years ago. This in turn has impact on the loss of dignity sustained by the innocent party…” it was talking of the reduction in stigma, not that adultery was no longer wrong. Also, the comment was made not mainly in relation to the moral blameworthiness of adultery, but mainly in relation to the determination of the quantum of damages against the third party. In my view, therefore, this judgment would better be served by an appeal or referral by the Attorney General, failing which the legislature should intervene by legislation. I may be wrong.
Columns
THE KEY TO HAPPINESS
Speaking at a mental health breakfast seminar last week I emphasised to the HR managerial audience that you cannot yoga your way out of a toxic work culture. What I meant by that was that as HR practitioners we must avoid tending to look at the soft options to address mental health issues, distractions such as yoga and meditation. That’s like looking for your lost bunch of keys, then opening the front door with the spare under the mat. You’ve solved the immediate problem, but all the other keys are still missing. Don’t get me wrong; mindfulness practices, yoga exercise and taking time to smell the roses all have their place in mental wellness but it’s a bit like hacking away at the blight-ridden leaves of the tree instead of getting to the root cause of the problem.
Another point I stressed was that mental health at work shouldn’t be looked at from the individual lens – yet that’s what we do. We have counselling of employees, wellness webinars or talks but if you really want to sort out the mental health crisis that we face in our organisations you HAVE to view this more systemically and that means looking at the system and that starts with the leaders and managers.
Now. shining a light on management may not be welcomed by many. But leaders control the flow of work and set the goals and expectations that others need to live up to. Unrealistic expectations, excessive workloads and tight deadlines increase stress and force people to work longer hours … some of the things which contribute to poor mental health. Actually, we know from research exactly what contributes to a poor working environment – discrimination and inequality, excessive workloads, low job control and job insecurity – all of which pose a risk to mental health. The list goes on and is pretty exhaustive but here are the major ones: under-use of skills or being under-skilled for work; excessive workloads or work pace, understaffing; long, unsocial or inflexible hours; lack of control over job design or workload; organizational culture that enables negative behaviours; limited support from colleagues or authoritarian supervision; discrimination and exclusion; unclear job role; under- or over-promotion; job insecurity.
And to my point no amount of yoga is going to change that.
We can use the word ‘toxic’ to describe dysfunctional work environments and if our workplaces are toxic we have to look at the people who set the tone. Harder et al. (2014) define a toxic work environment as an environment that negatively impacts the viability of an organization. They specify: “It is reasonable to conclude that an organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its employees”.
Micromanagement and/or failure to reward or recognize performance are the most obvious signs of toxic managers. These managers can be controlling, inflexible, rigid, close-minded, and lacking in self-awareness. And let’s face it managers like those I have just described are plentiful. Generally, however there is often a failure by higher management to address toxic leaders when they are considered to be high performing. This kind of situation can be one of the leading causes of unhappiness in teams. I have coached countless employees who talk about managers with bullying ways which everyone knows about, yet action is never taken. It’s problematic when we overlook unhealthy dynamics and behaviours because of high productivity or talent as it sends a clear message that the behaviour is acceptable and that others on the team will not be supported by leadership.
And how is the HR Manager viewed when they raise the unacceptable behaviour with the CEO – they are accused of not being a team player, looking for problems or failing to understand business dynamics and the need to get things done. Toxic management is a systemic problem caused when companies create cultures around high-performance and metrics vs. long-term, sustainable, healthy growth. In such instances the day-to-day dysfunction is often ignored for the sake of speed and output. While short-term gains are rewarded, executives fail to see the long-term impact of protecting a toxic, but high-performing, team or employee. Beyond this, managers promote unhealthy workplace behaviour when they recognize and reward high performers for going above and beyond, even when that means rewarding the road to burnout by praising a lack of professional boundaries (like working during their vacation and after hours).
The challenge for HR Managers is getting managers to be honest with themselves and their teams about the current work environment. Honesty is difficult, I’m afraid, especially with leaders who are overly sensitive, emotional, or cannot set healthy boundaries. But here’s the rub – no growth or change can occur if denial and defensiveness are used to protect egos. Being honest about these issues helps garner trust among employees, who already know the truth about what day-to-day dynamics are like at work. They will likely be grateful that cultural issues will finally be addressed. Conversely, if they aren’t addressed, retention failure is the cost of protecting egos of those in management.
Toxic workplace culture comes at a huge price: even before the Great Resignation, turnover related to toxic workplaces cost US employers almost $50 billion yearly! I wonder what it’s costing us here.
QUOTE
We can use the word ‘toxic’ to describe dysfunctional work environments and if our workplaces are toxic we have to look at the people who set the tone. Harder et al. (2014) define a toxic work environment as an environment that negatively impacts the viability of an organization. They specify: “It is reasonable to conclude that an organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its employees”.
Columns
Heartache for Kelly Fisher
| T |
o date, Princess Diana, General Atiku, had destroyed one marriage, come close to ruining another one in the offing, and now was poised to wreck yet another marriage that was already in the making. This was between Dodi Fayed and the American model Kelly Fisher.
If there was one common denominator about Diana and Dodi besides their having been born with a silver spoon in their mouths, General, it was that both were divorcees. Dodi’s matrimonial saga, however, was less problematic and acrimonious and lasted an infinitesimal 8 months. This was with yet another American model and film actress going by the name Susanne Gregard.
Dodi met Susanne in 1986, when she was only 26 years old. Like most glamourous women, she proved not to be that easy a catch and to readily incline her towards positively and expeditiously responding to his rather gallant advances, Dodi booked her as a model for the Fayed’s London mega store Harrods, where he had her travel every weekend by Concorde. They married at a rather private ceremony at Dodi’s Colorado residence in 1987 on New Year’s Day, without the blessings, bizarrely, of his all-powerful father. By September the same year, the marriage was, for reasons that were not publicised but likely due to the fact that his father had not sanctioned it, kaput.
It would take ten more years for Dodi to propose marriage to another woman, who happened to be Kelly Fisher this time around.
DODI HITCHES KELLY FISHER
Kelly and Dodi, General, met in Paris in July 1996, when Kelly was only 29 years old. In a sort of whirlwind romance, the duo fell in love, becoming a concretised item in December and formally getting engaged in February 1997.
Of course the relationship was not only about mutual love: the material element was a significant, if not vital, factor. Kelly was to give up her modelling job just so she could spend a lot more time with the new man in her life and for that she was to be handed out a compensatory reward amounting to $500,000. The engagement ring for one, which was a diamond and sapphire affair, set back Dodi in the order of $230,000. Once they had wedded, on August 9 that very year as per plan, they were to live in a $7 million 5-acre Malibu Beach mansion in California, which Dodi’s father had bought him for that and an entrepreneurial purpose. They were already even talking about embarking on making a family from the get-go: according to Kelly, Dodi wanted two boys at the very least.
Kelly naturally had the unambiguous blessings of her father-in-law as there was utterly nothing Dodi could do without the green light from the old man. When Mohamed Al Fayed was contemplating buying the Jonikal, the luxurious yacht, he invited Dodi and Kelly to inspect it too and hear their take on it.
If there was a tell-tale red flag about Dodi ab initio, General, it had to do with a $200,000 cheque he issued to Kelly as part payment of the pledged $500,000 and which was dishonoured by the bank. Throughout their 13-month-long romance, Dodi made good on only $60,000 of the promised sum. But love, as they say, General, is blind and Kelly did not care a jot about her beau’s financial indiscretions. It was enough that he was potentially a very wealthy man anyway being heir to his father’s humongous fortune.
KELLY CONSIGNED TO “BOAT CAGE”
In that summer of the year 1997, General, Dodi and Kelly were to while away quality time on the French Rivierra as well as the Jonikal after Paris. Then Dodi’s dad weighed in and put a damper on this prospect in a telephone call to Dodi on July 14. “Dodi said he was going to London and he’d be back and then we were going to San Tropez,” Kelly told the interviewer in a later TV programme. “That evening he didn’t call me and I finally got him on his portable phone. I said, ‘Dodi where are you?’ and he said he was in London. I said, ‘Ok, I’ll call you right back at your apartment’. He said, ‘No, no, don’t call me back’. So I said, ‘Dodi where are you?’ and he admitted he was in the south of France. His father had asked him to come down and not bring me, I know now.”
Since Dodi could no longer hide from Kelly and she on her part just could not desist from badgering him, he had no option but to dispatch a private Fayed jet to pick her up so that she join him forthwith in St. Tropez. This was on July 16.
Arriving in St. Tropez, Kelly, General, did not lodge at the Fayed’s seaside villa as was her expectation but was somewhat stashed in the Fayed’s maritime fleet, first in the Sakara, and later in the Cujo, which was moored only yards from the Fayed villa. It was in the Cujo Kelly spent the next two nights with Dodi. “She (Kelly) felt there was something strange going on as Dodi spent large parts of the day at the family’s villa, Castel St. Helene, but asked her to stay on the boat,” writes Martyn Gregory in The Diana Conspiracy Exposed. “Dodi was sleeping with Kelly at night and was courting Diana by day. His deception was assisted by Kelly Fisher’s modelling assignment on 18-20 July in Nice. The Fayed’s were happy to lend her the Cujo and its crew for three days to take her there.”
Dodi’s behaviour clearly was curious, General. “Dodi would say, ‘I’m going to the house and I’ll be back in half an hour’,” Kelly told Gregory. “And he’d come back three or four hours later. I was furious. I’m sitting on the boat, stuck. And he was having lunch with everyone. So he had me in my little boat cage, and I now know he was seducing Diana. So he had me, and then he would go and try and seduce her, and then he’d come back the next day and it would happen again. I was livid by this point, and I just didn’t understand what was going on. When he was with me, he was so wonderful. He said he loved me, and we talked to my mother, and we were talking about moving into the house in California.”
But as is typical of the rather romantically gullible tenderer sex, General, Kelly rationalised her man’s stratagems. “I just thought they maybe didn’t want a commoner around the Princess … Dodi kept leaving me behind with the excuse that the Princess didn’t like to meet new people.” During one of those nights, General, Dodi even had unprotected sexual relations with Kelly whilst cooing in her ear that, “I love you so much and I want you to have my baby.”
KELLY USHERED ONTO THE JONIKAL AT LONG LAST
On July 20, General, Diana returned to England and it was only then that Dodi allowed Kelly to come aboard the Jonikal. According to Debbie Gribble, who was the Jonikal’s chief stewardess, Kelly was kind of grumpy. “I had no idea at the time who she was, but I felt she acted very spoiled,” she says in Trevor Rees-Jones’ The Bodyguard’s Story. “I remember vividly that she snapped, ‘I want to eat right now. I don’t want a drink, I just want to eat now’. It was quite obvious that she was upset, angry or annoyed about something.”
Kelly’s irascible manner of course was understandable, General, given the games Dodi had been playing with her since she pitched up in St. Tropez. Granted, what happened to Kelly was very much antithetical to Dodi’s typically well-mannered nature, but the fact of the matter was that she simply was peripheral to the larger agenda, of which Dodi’s father was the one calling the shots.
On July 23, Dodi and Kelly flew to Paris, where they parted as Kelly had some engagements lined up in Los Angeles. Dodi promised to join her there on August 4 to celebrate with her her parents’ marriage anniversary. Dodi, however, General, did not make good on his promise: though he did candidly own up to the fact that he was at that point in time again with Diana, he also fibbed that he was not alone with her but was partying with her along with Elton John and George Michael. But in a August 6 phone call, he did undertake to Kelly that he would be joining her in LA in a few days’ time. In the event, anyway, General, Kelly continued to ready herself for her big day, which was slated for August 9 – until she saw “The Kiss”.
THE KISS THAT NEVER WAS
“The Kiss”, General, first featured in London’s Sunday Mirror on August 10 under that very headline. In truth, General, it was not a definitive, point-blank kiss: it was a fuzzy image of Diana and Dodi embracing on the Jonikal. A friend of Kelly faxed her the newspaper pictures in the middle of the night and Kelly was at once stunned and convulsed with rage.
But although Kelly was shocked, General, she was not exactly surprised as two or three days prior, British tabloids had already begun rhapsodising on a brewing love affair between Dodi and Diana. That day, Kelly had picked up a phone to demand an immediate explanation from her fiancé. “I started calling him in London because at this time I was expecting his arrival in a day. I called his private line, but there was no answer. So then I called the secretary and asked to speak to him she wouldn’t put me on. So Mohamed got on and in so many horrible words told me to never call back again. I said, ‘He’s my fiancé, what are you talking about?’ He hung up on me and I called back and the secretary said don’t ever call here again, your calls are no longer to be put through. It was so horrible.”
Kelly did at long last manage to reach Dodi but he was quick to protest that, “I can’t talk to you on the phone. I will talk to you in LA.” Perhaps Dodi, General, just at that stage was unable to muster sufficient Dutch courage to thrash out the matter with Kelly but a more credible reason he would not talk had to do with his father’s obsessive bugging of every communication device Dodi used and every inch of every property he owned. The following is what David Icke has to say on the subject in his iconic book The Biggest Secret:
“Ironically, Diana used to have Kensington Palace swept for listening devices and now she was in the clutches of a man for whom bugging was an obsession. The Al Fayed villa in San Tropez was bugged, as were all Fayed properties. Everything Diana said could be heard. Bob Loftus, the former Head of Security at Harrods, said that the bugging there was ‘a very extensive operation’ and was also always under the direction of Al Fayed. Henry Porter, the London Editor of the magazine Vanity Fair, had spent two years investigating Al Fayed and he said they came across his almost obsessive use of eavesdropping devices to tape telephone calls, bug rooms, and film people.”
Through mutual friends, General, Porter warned Diana about Al Fayed’s background and activities ‘because we thought this was quite dangerous for her for obvious reasons’ but Diana apparently felt she could handle it and although she knew Al Fayed could ‘sometimes be a rogue’, he was no threat to her, she thought. “He is rather more than a rogue and rather more often than ‘sometimes,” she apparently told friends. “I know he’s naughty, but that’s all.” The TV programme Dispatches said they had written evidence that Al Fayed bugged the Ritz Hotel and given his background and the deals that are hatched at the Ritz, it would be uncharacteristic if he did not. Kelly Fisher said that the whole time she was on Fayed property, she just assumed everything was bugged. It was known, she said, and Dodi had told her the bugging was so pervasive.
KELLY SUES, ALBEIT VAINLY SO
To his credit, General, Dodi was sufficiently concerned about what had transpired in St. Tropez to fly to LA and do his utmost to appease Kelly but Kelly simply was not interested as to her it was obvious enough that Diana was the new woman in his life.
On August 14, Kelly held a press conference in LA, where she announced that she was taking legal action against Dodi for breach of matrimonial contract. Her asking compensation price was £340,000. Of course the suit, General, lapsed automatically with the demise of Dodi in that Paris underpass on August 31, 1997.
Although Kelly did produce evidence of her engagement to Dodi in the form of a pricey and spectacular engagement ring, General, Mohamed Al Fayed was adamant that she never was engaged to his son and that she was no more than a gold digger.
But it is all water under the bridge now, General: Kelly is happily married to a pilot and the couple has a daughter. Her hubby may not be half as rich as Dodi potentially was but she is fully fulfilled anyway. Happiness, General, comes in all shades and does not necessarily stem from a colossal bank balance or other such trappings of affluence.
Pic Cap
THE SHORT-LIVED TRIANGLE: For about a month or so, Dodi Al Fayed juggled Princess Diana and American model Kelly Fisher, who sported Dodi’s engagement ring. Of course one of the two had to give and naturally it could not be Diana, who entered the lists in the eleventh hour but was the more precious by virtue of her royal pedigree and surpassing international stature.
NEXT WEEK: FURTHER BONDING BETWEEN DIANA AND DODI
Columns
EXTRAVAGANCE One of The Scourges in Society.
Extravagance in recent times has moved from being the practice of some rich and wealthy people of society in general and has regrettably, filtered to all levels of the society. Some of those who have the means are reckless and flaunt their wealth, and consequently, those of us who do not, borrow money to squander it in order to meet their families’ wants of luxuries and unnecessary items. Unfortunately this is a characteristic of human nature.
Adding to those feelings of inadequacy we have countless commercials to whet the consumer’s appetite/desire to buy whatever is advertised, and make him believe that if he does not have those products he will be unhappy, ineffective, worthless and out of tune with the fashion and trend of the times. This practice has reached a stage where many a bread winner resorts to taking loans (from cash loans or banks) with high rates of interest, putting himself in unnecessary debt to buy among other things, furniture, means of transport, dress, food and fancy accommodation, – just to win peoples’ admiration.
Islam and most religions discourage their followers towards wanton consumption. They encourage them to live a life of moderation and to dispense with luxury items so they will not be enslaved by them. Many people today blindly and irresponsibly abandon themselves to excesses and the squandering of wealth in order to ‘keep up with the Joneses’.
The Qur’aan makes it clear that allowing free rein to extravagance and exceeding the limits of moderation is an inherent characteristic in man. Allah says, “If Allah were to enlarge the provision for his servants, they would indeed transgress beyond all bounds.” [Holy Qur’aan 42: 27]
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said, “Observe the middle course whereby you will attain your objective (that is paradise).” – Moderation is the opposite of extravagance.
Every individual is meant to earn in a dignified manner and then spend in a very wise and careful manner. One should never try to impress upon others by living beyond one’s means. Extravagance is forbidden in Islam, Allah says, “Do not be extravagant; surely He does not love those who are extravagant!” [Holy Qur’aan 7: 31]
The Qur’aan regards wasteful buying of food, extravagant eating that sometimes leads to throwing away of leftovers as absolutely forbidden. Allah says, “Eat of the fruits in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. And waste not by excess, for Allah loves not the wasters.” [Holy Qur’aan 6: 141]
Demonstrating wastefulness in dress, means of transport, furniture and any other thing is also forbidden. Allah says, “O children of Adam! Wear your apparel of adornment at every time and place of worship, and eat and drink but do not be extravagant; surely He does not love those who are extravagant!” [Holy Qur’aan 7: 31]
Yet extravagance and the squandering of wealth continue to grow in society, while there are many helpless and deprived peoples who have no food or shelter. Just look around you here in Botswana.
Have you noticed how people squander their wealth on ‘must have’ things like designer label clothes, fancy brand whiskey, fancy top of the range cars, fancy society parties or even costly weddings, just to make a statement? How can we prevent the squandering of such wealth?
How can one go on spending in a reckless manner possibly even on things that have been made forbidden while witnessing the suffering of fellow humans whereby thousands of people starve to death each year. Islam has not forbidden a person to acquire wealth, make it grow and make use of it. In fact Islam encourages one to do so. It is resorting to forbidden ways to acquiring and of squandering that wealth that Islam has clearly declared forbidden. On the Day of Judgment every individual will be asked about his wealth, where he obtained it and how he spent it.
In fact, those who do not have any conscience about their wasteful habits may one day be subjected to Allah’s punishment that may deprive them of such wealth overnight and impoverish them. Many a family has been brought to the brink of poverty after leading a life of affluence. Similarly, many nations have lived a life of extravagance and their people indulged in such excesses only to be later inflicted by trials and tribulations to such a point that they wished they would only have a little of what they used to possess!
With the festive season and the new year holidays having passed us, for many of us meant ‘one’ thing – spend, spend, spend. With the festivities and the celebrations over only then will the reality set in for many of us that we have overspent, deep in debt with nothing to show for it and that the following months are going to be challenging ones.
Therefore, we should not exceed the bounds when Almighty bestows His bounties upon us. Rather we should show gratefulness to Him by using His bestowments and favours in ways that prove our total obedience to Him and by observing moderation in spending. For this will be better for us in this life and the hereafter.