I could never have been able to weather the storms that I was obliged to weather in the Home Affairs Ministry only with my team in the Ministry and without t
he genius of my Special Advisor Dr Mario Gaspare Oriani-Ambrosini. I always called him jocularly “my AK-47 Rifle”. My grandfather Mkhandumba
Buthelezi participated in the battle of Isandlwana in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 and survived. I have more seriously compared what Dr Mario Ambrosini was
to me to the cowhide shield that protected my grandfather during that battle of Isandlwana. I had worked with Dr Ambrosini since the time of the
Kempton Park negotiations. When I took over the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1994, I appointed him as my Special Advisor. Ministers were entitled to
appoint two Special Advisors and Dr Ambrosini did the work of two Advisors for the ten years that I was Minister. As a Believer I believed that he was one of
God's gifts to me. He was hated because he literally became my impenetrable shield. I am sad to state that he still bears the brunt of having been my
Special Advisor up to this day.

At the end of this process I was ready to issue the final regulations, which were indeed the greatest exercise of participatory democracy in our country known to me. As I was required by practice, I brought the draft regulations to Cabinet for it to note them. However, most of what I did was not trusted by my Cabinet colleagues who felt they had to have their own Departments reviewing it, even if they had no qualification in the matter. Accordingly, Cabinet set up a cumbersome political process to rewrite the regulations. This was obviously inconsistent with the Immigration Act which prescribed that the regulations had to emerge from public inputs and the Immigration Advisory Board, and not the political dictates of Cabinet Ministers with no line function responsibility over migration.

The law and the process it set were being subverted under political pressure. I protested the matter, but could not go public because of Cabinet secrecy.
Fortunately, a parliamentary question enquired why the final regulations were been delayed in spite of the process having been completed and my having
promised the Constitutional Court that the interim regulations would be replaced in a year. That question gave me the opportunity to spill the beans.
But Parliament did nothing about it. The one who rose to protect the integrity of the rule of law was Mr Eisenberg.

Mr Eisenberg brought an action before the High Court for an interdict to compel me to issue the regulations as they were finalised through the process of
public participation and without any political manipulation from Cabinet. Recognising the validity of his point, I decided to abide by the decision of the Court
and a preliminary interdict was issued forcing me to publish the regulations, which I did on the 8 th of March 2004 . These 8 March 2004 Immigration
Regulations remain a unique example of how public input was taken into account in a truly participatory process.

What followed was one of the most intriguing chapters in our legal history. The President intervened to interdict the coming into force of the Regulations,
claiming their invalidity because the Cabinet process was not complete and they had no Cabinet approval. I resisted the President's action and the President
sought to hold me personally liable for the cost of the action. I am not aware of any world precedent in which a President not only sued his own Minister,
but went so far as trying to get a cost order against him in his personal capacity.

Mr Eisenberg was in the thick of this legal battle, this time not opposing me, but the very President of our country. It takes some guts, courage and determination
to do that. The battle was not completed because the April 2004 elections intervened and I was no longer in the position of appealing the favourable
decision received by the President. Albeit published in the Gazette, the democratic and participatory Immigration Regulations never came into force.
The interim regulations stayed in force until, under the leadership of the new Minister, the Act was amended to repeal the entire requirement that regulations
should be made with the necessary participation of the pubic. The minister was restored in his or her unfettered regulatory discretion.

Mr Eisenberg's action may have changed the course of our political history. Mere days before elections, the President was suing me both in my ministerial and
personal capacities. A few days after elections, the President chose not to invite me again to join his Cabinet, which led my Party to no longer be part of a
coalition Government. Anyone may draw the conclusion they wish in respect of the connection between these two events, which are in such close proximity of time.

Personally, I do not mind, because throughout my life I have always done what I felt was right irrespective of the consequences. But this occasion is not about me,
but rather about Mr Eisenberg. In this respect, the story I have now publicly disclosed signifies how the courage of a single man can indeed make a difference
in the course of human events. Mr Eisenberg is proof that no-one should feel hopeless when confronting injustice and that a single person armed with the sword
and shield of the law can indeed make a significant difference to the greater common good.

I hope his example will be followed more widely and I look forward to following the developments of Mr Eisenberg brilliant legal career. I understand that
he has recently been appointed as Vice-Chairperson of the Immigration Section of the International Bar Association. This brings prestige to our country and I hope
that Mr Eisenberg will be able to make a positive contribution there.

As you continue to serve our Country and all its people, I hope that you will now be able to have someone you can do business with in the person of
Mr Mavuso Msimang the newly appointed Director-General. Although his liberation struggle credentials are impeccable, I can assure you that he is not obsessed
with them. To him it is the now and the future which matter, rather than the past. I know him and I have full confidence in him. I congratulate the Minister
for appointing such a dedicated South African as the Accounting Officer of her department. I hope that his occupation of that post will make your burdens and
those of your other colleagues in the legal fraternity lighter, as you continue to serve your Country. I can only hope that my speaking in this vein about him
will not amount to a kiss of death.

Migration may bear in the 21 st century almost the same importance that human rights did in the 20 th century. There is a huge amount of theoretical work
which needs to be done to develop this field. Possibly, from the liberalisation of worldwide migration, a new, more just and more humane world society may
finally emerge. The new Minister of Home Affairs has effectively emasculated and collapsed the Immigration Advisory Board which nonetheless carries the motto
of Aperire Terram Gentibus , which means “Open the Land to the People”. One day the development of migration control may finally assert the prominence
of the people of the world over the many governments, potentates and oppressors which claim to rule them.

In this respect, as my life experience draws closer to its inescapable end, I am heartened that there are courageous people like Mr Gary Eisenberg who can
carry forward the vision of freedom and democracy which has for many centuries inspired so many battles around the world. This vision, I promise you, is far
from being accomplished and is now more than ever in great jeopardy. Therefore, I hope that not only Mr Eisenberg, but all the lawyers present here this evening,
will continue to act as vigilant watchdogs over our fledgling democracy.

I thank you.