The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) yesterday acted like a reckless gambler who has lost almost all his money and then wages his house, his car and the clothes on his back on a hopeless bet in a desperate attempt to regain some of his losses.
And the losses are great and piling up.
Let’s summarise the reasons for the decision. The NPA believes that Mr Zuma still has a case to answer in court and that it has a winnable case against him. It also believes that Mr Zuma will be able to receive a fair trail.
But it claims – without giving Mr Leonard McCarthy a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty – that the head of the Scorpions allowed interference into his decision regarding the timing of re-charging Zuma. Nobody has said that the Scorpions have fabricated evidence. Nobody has said that the NPA does not have a winnable case against Mr Zuma. But because of interference in the timing of the charges, the NPA decided to drop charges against Zuma.
This line of reasoning seems a bit perplexing, to say the least.
First, the NPA quotes at length from a decision handed down by Lord Steyn in the House of Lords to justify its decision. But we are not a colony of Britain (as Robert Mugabe might have pointed out) and unlike the UK we have a written Constitution. A decision to prosecute or not to prosecute has to be taken in terms of our Constitution and our law and not what Lord Steyn said regarding a country without a written Constitution.
Second, the NPA quoted at length from the decision of Harms in the appeal against the Nicholson judgment but failed to mention the last sentence of the relevant paragraph where Harms said that a prosecution will only become unlawful if it was not brought to secure a conviction for the accused but for another purpose.
In this case, it is very clear that the purpose has always been to secure the conviction of Mr Zuma and the outrageous manipulation of the process to try and influence the Polokwane vote does not change this in any way. I fail therefore to see how it can be argued that the interference should lead to a dropping of charges.
What should happen is that Mr McCarthy and Bulelani Ngcuka should be investigated to find out whether they breached the NPA act which prohibits interference in its work. Mr Zuma and his lawyer, Mr Hulley should also be investigated because they had in their possession recordings which were criminally handed over to them and they might well be guilty as accomplices in the commission of a crime that carries a ten year prison sentence.
Third, if one tries o fit in the reasoning of the NPA into the prosecuting policy – which unlike precedent from colonial Britain the NPA is actually legally bound by – it is difficult to see how a decision not to charge Mr Zuma under these circumstances can be justified in relation to this prosecution policy.
In fact, one would think that allegations that Mr McCarthy had colluded with Ngcuka about the timing of the charges would have led the NPA to try and demonstrate that it was prosecuting Zuma without fear favour or prejudice, despite the shenanigans of Ngcuka and McCarthy.
But inexplicably, the political heads of the NPA overruled the lawyers and decided to drop charges, thus further tarnishing the image of the NPA and inexorably creating the impression that it was not influenced by legal considerations – despite all the bells and whistles trotted out by Mpshe – but political considerations.
Instead of trying to salvage the image of the NPA it has further muddied the waters.
Mr Zuma, of course, still has a case to answer. An organ of state has consistently believed that Mr Zuma is a crook. If they never believed this, the manipulation about the timing of the charges would never have arisen. Mr Zuma will therefore proceed to become our President with a dark cloud over his head. Like the NPA his credibility would have been severely affected.
For many of us this decision is an outrage. It suggests that the NPA buckled under ANC pressure to drop the charges and the tapes gave them the excuse to do so.
And the big problem for Mr Zuma and his supporters was that Mr Zuma was charged while others were not. Some ANC members were protected from prosecution and Mr Zuma not. This was the alleged political persecution. Let’s face it, the facts and the law suggest Mr Zuma is a deeply compromised person.
The effect of this decision by the NPA is that we all now know that not only some, but ALL ANC members are above the law and can do anything they want, without fearing that they will be prosecuted because if they are prosecuted pressure will be brought to bear on our institutions to “protect” them from “persecution”.
so, time to put our money where our mouths are. The DA has set up a fund for a legal challenge in this regard. Do your bit for South Africa, it seems that the only way we might challenge the ANC’s lust for power is to throw money at the problem.
Well, right at the start of the process, Mr Zuma has threatenend that if the NPA had the cheeck to get him into court, then he would spill all the beans about the arms deal.
So there was a powerful incentive for the ANC to assist Zuma in his bid to stay out of court. And it has finally worked.
Shame! I would have liked to see that barny
No, Mr. De Vos, your conclusion is not valid. Instead, certain ANC members — those who are well thought of by the ruling elite in South Africa — and, of course, that ruling elite itself, can begin to be above the law. We are not a state without law, we are an oligarchy in which those who submit to the oligarchy may earn the privileges of the oligarchy.
Those who challenge the oligarchy, like Mbeki and company, must be severely punished. And, of course, the NPA’s reason for abandoning the charges was that they did not wish to face that level of punishment. Zuma had laid out to them the level of punishment which they could have faced; he controls the secret police and the spy networks, including the thugs whom he commanded when he was in exile. Once it became clear that they would not be protected, what else could they do? Destroy themselves in pursuit of a policy — equality before the law — which had become a standing joke in oligarchical circles?
At last, common sense prevailed. We almost lost our hard-earned democracy because of our blood-thirst for one allegedly corrupt man. The ANC government was willing to sacrifice our very own democracy to protect Zuma. I would rather have my democracy with an apparently deeply compromised NPA than have an apparently uncompromised NPA without any democracy within which such an NPA would have to function. Good work Adv. Mpshe. Despite the man you have let off the hook not being my favourite, I am prepared to sacrifice and give him what he wants with my eye on the big prize (my democracy).
One thing for sure – the Shaiks are on the inside track of this one – they knew long before everyone else…
strange that – the connection to the selebi leaked tapes, oh my you know wmds terminal illness assisted suicides containers of weed and hash years of pay leave years of investigations and failed units – fuckyou Jeffery Archer!
Absolutely bizarre. Pdv totally ignores the implications of Bulelani Ngcuka apparently still running the NPA, no – in fact the Scorpions, years after he resigned and he wonders how Mpshe could have come to his decision ?
PdV you demonstrate with each and every post you put up on your blog just how unbelievably fake your concerns about the protection of our constitution is.
Ag and just because I’m South African –
I’ve been dying to say this….. tooo
FUCK THE DALAI LAMA and those peacenicks arm those subs we’re attacking Zimbabwe though the sewers
hey whose the emperor of this boat?
and why the F^#$ is he not wearing any clothes?
You didn’t really expect anything else. By now you must realise that this is a centralist state controlled by the party much like Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany and Communist China. Judge by those standards.
OH your lady justice is well fitting for these sad episode, one eye closed and the other eye open she is isnt raped shes just as corrupt
I see the markets took a dip and SACCI is just as worried about the NPA statement this will have on the country with regards to investments
But one silver lining i can pick out it is this statement actually strengthens Pikolis case and I actually see this vindicates him
Good post Prof.
There is none so blind as those who refuse to see!!!!.
Egg on your faces, hey, hate to say it but I told you so.Yesterday I took leave so that I could properly celebrate as celebrations were and still are for a long time in order!
What else can PdV say but whinge and moan as usual, how commonplace that one can even tell what your reaction would be, a Prof,. is supposed to be sophisticated, not easily predictable owing to bigotry and personal hatred of one person, you have lost professionalism as a result of your hatred of Zuma but I have noticed that on TV you cowardly tone it down!
Chris, I don’t think the Dow Jones and Hang Seng were dipping because of Jacob Zuma! The collapse of South Africa’s national prosecution system is not a big international issue.
Chris Mcdaniel @ 8:59 am
“But one silver lining i can pick out it is this statement actually strengthens Pikolis case and I actually see this vindicates him”
LOL. You mean to say Pikoli is now just as implicated as McCarthy who served under him and was busy with compiling the Browse-Mole report right under his nose?
ozoneblue // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:04 am
man you you need to think further than that little nose of yours? see this whole thing would implicate Mbeki because Zuma has been ranting and raving like an ecstasy bunny and yourself about “CONSPIRACY THEORIES” well clearly you have said and Zuma that Mbeki is behind this.
Now if Mbeki is behind this and manipulated the NPA then this proves pikoli is right that mbeki manupilating the NPA about Selebi….ello???
or do you only have selective reading and hearing?
Pikoli is going to be a thorn in your backside i actually can not wait
MFB // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:03 am
do yourself a favour go to CNN, BBC, Aljazeera just to name a few, your country is not some back water little piece of spec hanging on to crap, there is international interest in south africa
there would of been some indirect impact or direct impact not a major impact or slight one the economy is to big for that but there will be investors who think with there feet and they might of just walked the other way
It doesn’t seem to me that this is over, finish and klaar, not at all, only the beginning of the next act in our Faustian drama, and yes actually, the world is watching, and the poor will get poorer.
To all of you in revelry who will be voting Africa’s next big man into power, do you understand corruption and who pays for it.
When however many millions were paid in bribes over the arms deal and who knows how many other deals, its you and I who pay the bribe through VAT, income tax, fuel tax etc. Commission bribes are part of the price we pay for the deal. Get it? We pay the bribe. To the corrupt and the cheat there is a sucker born every minute. So laugh, dance and cheer around your expensive whiskeys while your brother and sisters struggle to survive, in the end you’re just another sucker.
Up to this point I have always been optimistic about South Africa’s future.
Not anymore. George Orwell comes to mind: “we are all equal, but some are more equal”
The South African version reads: “we are all equal, but some are ANC members”
For once I am thinking SA is going to descend into a banana republic.
Prof, I think only those with political glasses on doesn’t see the fact that Zuma HAS a case to answer.
So basically South Africa are going to elect a “alleged” corrupt homophobe as president!
I weep for my country today.
George Gildenhuys @ 9:45 am
I think for Pierre it is more about the “homophobe” part than anything else. The constitution comes a remote second.
Any case I really don’t give a shit what chicken runners like yourself has to say about the future of my country. You have already proven where your allegiance is : long before Zuma. So the same constitution that Ngcuka and McCarty was raping “guarantees” your right to vote – enough said.
ozoneblue // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:55 am
dont think thats a very nice thing to say, you should actually be ashamed of yourself and that is very unpatriotic i must say….you seem to sink to new depths every day. make me sick!
Surely now Zuma can explain to us how it is OK that he used his public office to promote the interests of a shady crook who was paying him money? Perhaps an apology….or admission of a lapse in judgement………….(holding of breath)
The ANC line has changed from “innocent until proven guilty” to “innocent as no charges to answer”. Support selective application of the law and always be a winner! Vote ANC!
look all is not lost there is still some hope….
The CCS needs to file an application to the High Court for a review
Political parties have this morning lodged an application to the High Court
This is winnable
The Supreme Court of Appeal had ruled that “a prosecution is not wrongful merely because it is brought for an improper purpose. It will only be wrongful if, in addition, reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting are absent
Mpshe already stated that the decision was not based on the actual merits of the case.
Mpshe also left the door open by saying that a judge needs to make the final decision.
Mdu // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:01 am
I am a product of Professor de Vos – and proud to be. He is a respected intellectual – maybe not by you but by many others. And just to set the record straight, I am a black professional person – not white -just in case you wanted to play the race card.
It’s funny how the Prof is such a bad professional – he’s opinion on issues is widely requested – funny hey. People are not brainless – they would not request the opinion of a professor who is biased wrt a certain topic.
You don’t have to agree with what the Prof has said. You are allowed to raise your own opinion. A personal attack on another undermines your own opinion.
Anyway – you have to admit – Zuma still has a case to answer – and that is something which I hope gets out. With Shabir getting out and Tony Y’s freedom – and now this – the equality clause has become a relative right in our society – the situation in this country is somewhat laughable.
@ ozoneblue // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:55 am
Funny how the old ANC bloodsuckers try and deflect attention away from Zuma’s crime’s by pointing the finger at other people. Ye olde attention diversion practice seems to be the best defence they have when trying to defend the corrupt cancer that is the ANC.
Prof, talking of quotations, the NPA cited the Zimbabwean Supreme Court (the previous version under Gubbay CJ) in Smythe v Ushewokunze and did not disclose that in fact the SC ordered the removal of the Prosecutor from the case rather than the withdrawal of charges. With Ngcuka and McCarthy out of NPA, why could the man not be prosecuted lawfully. Like I always say, we are all African countries with similar traits…!
What the fuck just happened here?
Who is running the NPA and the NIA. These two pillars of our democracy do not seem to be running the way they are supposed to.
A few weeks ago Mo Shaik told us that the charges will be dropped. Yesterday we were told that a few rogue elements influenced the NPA’s work around the timing of the charges. If that is as true as stated, who is to say that Mpshe decision is the most honest decision on the matter. Why should we trust this decision by Mpshe if by his own admission, he has been duped into lying on sworn affidavits? What makes him think that he is not making the same mistake now? Did he personally verify these tapes?
And what was Hofmeyer role in this whole thing? Does the NPA Act allow for its employees to ‘negotiate’, with the NPA, on the behalf of the accused, if the report by the M&G is to be true?
Maybe when, and if, Ngcuka & McCarthy take the stand we will get closer to the truth. Yesterday, we went further away from it.
Mickael dont be simplistic, haven’t you ever noticed that your Prof.;s opinion is only sought by eTV,com on!
mdu
isnt interface SABC3? Pierre was there on Sunday so whats ur point?
Zumababwe here we come.
The Fat Cats continue to get Fat,,,there will be price to pay,,,,
Great summary Prof ! A saga of greed, clans and malice. Look to Shakespeare for Act IV – more to follow.
Mdu
Are you going to provide some intellectual comment on the real issues at hand or are you going to continue to undermine yourself?
The tapes are as close to a smoking gun as it gets. Mbeki does not need to speak to mcCarthy. His views are easily conveyed via Ngcuka. How daft can you lot get?
But what about the fruit of the poisoned tree?
“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:17-20.”
This cannot apply as a reason to drop charges, as Hofmeyr suggested.
khosi // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:26 am
I like questions, if anything this whole thing didnt give us any closer to the truth.
about the tapes i dont think he personnaly verified the tapes, my reason is first he siad the NIA obtained the tapes legally through the browse mole report then later he says this
“The NPA has decided to request the Inspector-General of Intelligence formally to investigate any possible illegality surrounding the recordings that were presented to it”
then also says
“Although the recordings sounded authentic, the NPA decided to approach agencies that have a legal mandate to intercept telephone calls, with a view to ascertaining whether they may have legally obtained recordings of the same conversations.”
so without a doing a proper probe into this, this simply goes to show he took the tapes on the bases on face value and dropped the chargers with out even knwing if the tapes are fake or real or even obtained legally.
This is such BS!
Link to DA’s application.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/pdfs/dareview.pdf
Montana // Apr 7, 2009 at 11:05 am
I beg the question how do you know the tapes are legit ? because the NIA said so?
and what proof do you have of Mbeki that his views are easily conveyed via Ngcuka?
Why did the NPA quote from the Nicholson ruling when it had been overturned?
Surely, they should quote from the SCA ruling concerning this matter? Oh but that ruling did not come from Polokwane, silly me.
ozoneblue @ 9:55 am
“”Any case I really don’t give a shit what chicken runners like yourself has to say about the future of my country”"
what?!!! Your country??!!! There you have it now. You horrible racist! How dare you!!!
It is my country too! I am South African, and proud of it. I will NEVER not be a South African.
George Gildenhuys @ 11:38 am
“It is my country too! I am South African, and proud of it. I will NEVER not be a South African.”
So come and live here then and pay tax into the democratically elected government instead of slandering it through the Internet.
ozoneblue @ 9:55 am
“”You have already proven where your allegiance is : long before Zuma.”"
What?! you pretend to know where my allegiance is?!
What a joke you are!
My allegiance is with the rule of law, with a supreme constitution and a non-racist, non-sexist system of govenrment!
I have never endorsed any political party on any of Prof’s blogs.
So don’t you dare make my mind up for me.
Sorry, for hijacking this blog to make a personal attack, but I am quite livid with Ozone (read idiot/racist) saying things he knows nothing about.
The DA knew just as well as any other thinking person what Mokotedi’s decision would be.
It seems from the document that they had prepared for this eventuality well in advance.
That said, the arguments they put forward in terms of PAJA and the Constitution look sound to me, but I’d like to hear the opinion of a Constitutional expert…
ozoneblue at 11:51 am
“”So come and live here then and pay tax into the democratically elected government instead of slandering it through the Internet.”"
Again (moron) check your facts before making comments. I do pay tax in South Africa, I still have a lot of economic ties to MY COUNTRY.
AND, just because the ANC is democratically elected, does NOT mean they are above criticism.
Sandra…
…the problem to me is that the only WINNERS (thus far) in this whole mess seems to be the lawyers.
Sure they care about upholding The Law ─ just ask the “honourable” Michael Hulley with ALL this very “respectful” submissions.
I can’t help but to think that this will continue, regardless of how much money we throw at this.
The best approach will probably be if a unified legal-academic front is created, sponsored by the Public Conscience (that is us!) to combat these type of attrocities, with the KEY EMPHASIS of “Upholding The Truth”, as “Upholding the Law doesn’t always seem synonymous with The Truth”.
Funding could work like the typical non-profit, although ideally we should be able to become shareholders so that in appropriate cases we can demand penalties against those that rapes The Law. Any revenue will be shared with a valid cause…
The reality is that we have some excellent legal brains out there (such as Pierre, whether some like it or not, he does know his stuff), but that they don’t always have an avenue to make the IMPACT that they can actually make.
It (upholding The Truth) should be a calling and not only a get-rich-quick venture…as it too often seem to be.
As part of this we can create a programme of keeping Judges (and magistrates) ACCOUNTABLE: keep track of what happens to their cases on APPEAL and get rid of the sour grapes.
Then I’m not even touching some of the other anomalies in the overall legal system…*sigh*…we have to stay postive!
In all of this brouhaha! The knife has been twisted further into Mr Zuma. He will now never have a chance to clear his name. The NPA, and the Judge have been at pains to say, that it does not amount to an acquittal. Sounds like Bulelani’s infamous statement has been reinforced.
So if I were to advise the ANC, in addition to going after the conspirators, I would insist on clearing Mr Zuma’s name. So that the matter can be finally dealt with, and Mr Mbeki and the conspirators can be dealt with soundly, legally, and for all time.
Mr Zuma, please protect the rule of law, deal with the conspirators harshly, legally, and please clear your name so that we can proudly call you our president.
It has been said that Ngcuka will be charged for manipulating the charges against Zuma. Nothing is said about the tapes and investigating person/people that released them illegally to the Zuma camp. So we continue with this selective justice again!
MFB // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:03 am
“do yourself a favour go to CNN, BBC, Aljazeera just to name a few, your country is not some back water little piece of spec hanging on to crap, there is international interest in south africa
there would of been some indirect impact or direct impact not a major impact or slight one the economy is to big for that but there will be investors who think with there feet and they might of just walked the other way”
Yup its a piece of black spec in the middle of a rotten continent i.e 5th world..
as the international world has commented on CNN , that the corruption was not as insidious as the acquittal of rape..
the man has no integrity at all ! he has taken any credibility the anc had and crapped it away!!! eventually there will be tribal problems … just take a peek at the rest of the rotten lot!
@ Just Asking // Apr 7, 2009 at 12:56 pm
That has to be the funniest thing I have read today: “Mr Zuma, please protect the rule of law”.
Yes, and you mister shark, please protect all the little fishes in the sea.
These ANC supporters suffer from such delusions that it’s hard to believe they’ve been able to master the art of reading, never mind commenting on a blog.
“…proudly call you our president.” Uhm, no. I’ll never _proudly_ call an “alleged” rapist, a fraudster and an uneducated populist my president. Rather, I’ll _ashamedly_ call him my president.
This whole “conspirators” issue is just a clever ruse by Showerhead and his minions to divert attention away from the fact that he has neither been acquitted nor vindicated by any decision thus far.
All I have to say is: The ex President Mr Mbeki and friends should all go to jail. They should be shamed, for attempting to break down what millions have put together…(the rainbow nation). The DA is trying by all means to get cheap votes, to hell with them.
Prof de Vos: Peharps you have been a victim of the conspiracy theory yourself. I do not blame you, after all, our constitution protects everyone equally…even the ignorant.
Everyone seems to think that the NPA’s decision taints our democracy. I beg to differ, it simply shows that abuse of power has no room in our democracy…and that no one is in fact above the law.
VIVA DEMOCRACY….VIVA!!!!
@Paul Brislin// Apr 7, 2009 at 1:32 pm
“…it simply shows that abuse of power has no room in our democracy…and that no one is in fact above the law.”
Except JZ! And John Hlophe! And Jackie Selebi! Oh, wait and Schabir Shaik! Did I forget anyone? How about Winnie Mandela? Or Tony Yengeni? Or anyone of the ANC MPs involved in Travelgate? Or… well, you get the picture.
The pure, untempered hatred of Jacob Zuma on this site is absolutely astounding. PdV certainly knows how to attract some of the most debased, reactionary scum that unfortunately call themselves South African.
I certainly hope that one-day when I defend Hellen Zille or Piet Mulder against political abuse by the state/NPA all these pie-brained morons will join me in the battle. Oh – but did I forget: same judge Nicholson also found that the DA was a victim of a political conspiracy in the Western Cape.
Samaita // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:25 am
……………………………………………………..
Can you really say with confidence that Zuma will indeed get a free and fair trial as entrenched in our Constitution?
Sne // Apr 7, 2009 at 2:06 pm
of cause he can, he can get the best defence tax payers money can ever afford, hell he can even get Robert George Kardashian
so yes he is or was getting a free ( tax payers were paying for it) and fair ( tax payers are paying for it)
I know that Jacob Zuma is notoriously dishonest. But I think he should start being more suave in his deceptions. His team claimed they had no prior knowledge of the Mpshe decision (inspite of press leaks, Mo Shaik’s statements, the aborted 702 press conferences of “National Interest”, etc). They then fail inexplicably fail to lodge his papers in the constitutional court! Meaning, had Mpshe not withdrawn the charges they would have been in a bend at the CC, unless of course he new he was home free. Interestingly, there was an article about one of the alleged conspirators, Mzi Khumalo, in the Star, yesterday, outlining his legal woes, etc, coincidentally on the day when his name is linked to an “unlawful” conspiracy. Talk of trials by the media, honesty, hypocrisy…
Ag, Oz, we dont hate him, we just dont want a corrupt deceitful and immoral man who thinks he’s still in a liberation movement and acts accordingly as our leader.
@ ozoneblue // Apr 7, 2009 at 1:55 pm
So, Eugene, you’re telling me with a straight face that you believe Zuma is innocent and it’s all a political conspiracy? Didn’t I see you at the Aardklop comedy tent?
I doubt if anyone here hates Zuma personally, but I’ll bet a few hate the values and morals he stands for.
Ozoneblue at 11:51 am
“So come and live here then and pay tax into the democratically elected government instead of slandering it through the Internet.”
Since when is allegiance to the elected government of your country the same as patriotism?
Pierre,
Spare a thought for poor Mpshe. Zuma’s next action was going to be an application for a permanent stay of prosecution, in which he would have alleged the abuse of the process and political interference with the decision to prosecute. Mpshe would not have been in a position to opose such an application as he apparently now has evidence in his possession which indicates that the allegation is true. Zuma does not even have to produce the tapes, all he needed to do was to make the allegation under oath in his founding papers. Nobody in the NPA could, after having obtained knowledge of the existence of the tape, state under oath that Zuma’s allegation is not true.
So if he is not in a position to oppose an application for stay of prosecution, what is the point of proceeding with the prosecution?
Please also remember that the NPA is “vuis voos”. They have been trying to get Zuma on trial for years now and but they came up against stiff opposition from an accused who was simply to powerful, politically and financially and who could afford the best lawyers to contest the charges from every angle you could possibly think of and worked the system for all its worth. The NPA simply could not take another punch, and lets face it the last one was a powerful blow.
But there is no need to dispair. There is life after the failed prosecution of Jacob Zuma. Think of the bright side of this whole Jacob Zuma saga. We have two excellent judgements that emanated from this. One came from the Constitutional Court about the search and seizure warrants and one from the SCA that overturned the Nicholson judgement. The value of those judgments do not lie in the fact that they went against Jacob Zuma, but because they made valuable contributions to our jurisprudence in respect of criminal law and criminal justice in South Africa. Law students will study those judgements, they will not study the drama and intrigue (and shame) that led to the NPA dropping the charges against Zuma. Judges will quote from and apply those judgements in future as they build and expand our jurisprudence.
And the hope for those of us who felt that Zuma should have had his day in court, does not lie in the DA’s court application. It lies in the fact that all of this is just the growing pains of a nation that is slowly maturing and a voting public that will eventually be a sophisticated one, one that wll express their discontent with the ruling party at the poling station.
Yes, Zuma will probably become our President after the elections. This is not the end of the world. He will have to live up to the expectations of the masses that would have voted him into power.
And the ANC will not rule until Jesus comes. Yes they will win very comfortably in 2009, but Zuma will have the pressure of living up to all the expectations during his first term to ensure victory again in 2014, which is not going to be that easy.
shakira
now thats what i call stating your case, very well balanced.
the only objection im going to have is Mpshe is weak, the fact that Zuma was going to apply for permanent stay of prosecution he would of needed to hand over the evidence of the tapes…….the judge would of lunched a full probe into these tapes. I still think these tapes a dodgy
I think Zuma and co take a gamble and it paid off with the NPA. Mpshe was weak cos even if the tapes are authentic ( which Im sorry has actually not be proved just because the NIA says the tapes are legit) this has not proved Zuma’s case of a political conspiracy all it showed is allogations of McCarthy aabsing the NPA structures.
It still does not dismiss the fact that the evidence presented by the NPA is tainted.
The NPA is currently weak with an acting head who is clearly over his head, this was caused by the ANC if pikoli was involved and he has made a statement about this the charges would not have been dropped.
shakira // Apr 7, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Spot on, Shakira.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A976055
what an interesting legal opinion
Sne
I believe Zuma would get a fair trial.
nausea @ 2:35 pm
Hey nausea buddy. You should try to work on your basic comprehension skills instead of cherry picking those parts of what I wrote to suit your twisted sense of justice.
What Aardklop and whomever you think I am has to do with all this is totally beyond me. Poor attempt at being an ubertroll. you make me nauseas that is for sure.
Good post Shakira, spoken like a true lawyer.
Shakira:
So, sort of like the OJ Simpson case in the US–too much money, too many good lawyers, allowing the possibility of spending the system to death.
And the possibility that justice will still be done eventually–OJ is in jail now, and Zuma is hardly getting off without taint, and his job will be very difficult (because he is setting expectations for his followers/supporters that are impossible to meet).
Indeed, the best possible outcome of all of this is not for Zuma to go to jail, but for the end of one party rule in SA, and this short term result (the election of Zuma) makes that longer term result (the defeat of the ANC) more of a possibility.
When Zuma is unable to deliver on all of the promises he has made, then his supporters will be more likely to believe that he (and the ANC) are crooks, and that the system is rigged against them, and for people like Shaik and Zuma and the rest of the ANC crony capitalists.
OzoneBlue and others,
I (and I am sure the same is true for the Prof) do not defend McCarthy and Ngcuka (let them defend themselves – we have not heard their side yet). But put this in proportion – what was the effect of the “raping” of the Constitution?
Mr Zuma charged BEFORE Polokwane, or AFTER? Hmm…
Mdu, instead of complaining about the Prof’s “whinge and moan”, perhaps you could explain why his statements are incorrect. (Hint, use logic and facts.)
Sne, could you perhaps advance any actual reasons why Mr Zuma would not get a fair trial?
What I find strange is that during the press conference, Mshe has stated that there was no submissions made regarding the evidence against Zuma. But today Zuma releases a statement stating that the dropping of charges is proof that there is no evidence against him. This is a true mirepresentation of the facts.
Prof, I share your despondence but I also feel that we make too much hey of our judiciary and prosecuting authority being slapped around by the political powers that be. It has always been like this in any democracy and it will remain like this. The apex of power is with the politically elected leaders and if they feel like trumping the judiciary, they can do so. Why should South Africa be different from France or the USA? During Clinton’s Lewinsky affair, the legal process of proceedings against Clinton was heavily manipulated by the republicans. France’s former president Chirac could have ended up in jail for corruption but he saved himself by becoming president. And the list goes on. So, we are a young democracy – why should we be different from established ones? It surely does not mean that our democracy is toast, does it?
ozoneblue // Apr 7, 2009 at 4:16 pm
do you think you could just for once, i know this seems to be asking for much but for once stop attacking people and rather comment on Law this is a Law blog.
honestly just stop ur shit, you are impressing no one. YOu seem to call every one a troll on here. the only troll here is you, you have your own blog go spew your nonsense there….
please for the love of god and for everyone on here grow up. enough with attacking people.
Once again this is a law blog.
Please pierre just kick this baby off this website, ive had enough of this gutter crap
Mike Atkins // Apr 7, 2009 at 4:23 pm
………………………………………………………..
I actually did not say Zuma will not get a free and fair trial. Since your plea to me to “advance any actual reasons why Mr Zuma would not get a fair trial” is dependent on your belief that I said he will not get a free and fair trial, it falls aside as well.
So what exactly are you saying, ozone? Because Ngcuka and McCarthy were allegedly colluding as to when they would institute charges, we should ignore JZ’s corrupt activities? Or drop the charges completely?
The fact that there was political conniving happening in the background does not change the fact that JZ has not faced the actual charges in court.
Ngcuka and McCarty have the right to defend themselves if they need to, but their guilt does not detract from the merits of the case against JZ.
Oh, and assuming I’m part of the “debased, reactionary scum” you so blithely use to describe anyone who differs with your opinion, the nauseating feeling goes both ways.
Glouty // Apr 7, 2009 at 4:30 pm
………………………………………………..
I find it strange that you find Zuma’s statement strange. It has always been like that. Even before this when Zuma was winning the cases against NPA for the procedural irregularities, he maintained, and so did his supporters, that he was an innocent man despite the cases not being on the merits but on the technicalities. I believe JP Hlophe also did that (misrepresenting the facts).
Mike Atkins @ 4:23 pm
“I (and I am sure the same is true for the Prof) do not defend McCarthy and Ngcuka (let them defend themselves – we have not heard their side yet). ”
Yet you do not denouncing it either – in fact the general “moral majority” in here is oblivious to it, hardly worth a mention. A factual inconvenience to be shouted down or ignored with much hand wringing and ah well that doesn’t matter. The gravity of the NPA decision is ether downplayed or totally ignored – yet the constitutional implications for all South Africans are dire indeed.
It is understandable that PdV cannot stand up to critical self-appraisal and deviating from his unflinching (and dare I say unhealthy if not totally perverted) obsession with Jacob Zuma, cause after all during the past few years he has been talking the NPA and the Scorpions up, he has been calling those of us pointing to the obvious evidence of political manipulation all kinds of ugly things “conspiracy theorists” , “revolutionaries” and “populists” and whatever. It takes a man to concede you were wrong (even if you were blessed with man breasts) : but PdV is apparently less than a man.
nausea @ 4:52 pm
“Because Ngcuka and McCarthy were allegedly colluding as to when they would institute charges, we should ignore JZ’s corrupt activities?”
Or in either words they were conspiring against Zuma. If you don’t understand why that compromised the NPA and derailed their attempt to charge Zuma then I cannot explain the basics to you. Perhaps you should go and read the NPA act for yourself.
How it doesn’t seem to phase or bother you that more than three years after Ngcuka resigned as DNPA – the previous head of the very powerful state prosecution agency now a private citizen, McCarthy was apparently still reporting to him. That is incredible my friend : that somehow that doesn’t hit you like a kick in the nuts is scary of to say least.
Mercy, the ignorance on this blog is sometimes purely astounding.
There is no innocent man alive who would ever fight that hard to stay out of a courtroom to show the world that he is innocent.
South Africa is so beautiful, I get so angry that these people in the ANC seem to think they can rape her as much as they want with absolute impunity. It absolutely infuriates me when I realise that they can, because, well, they’re the fucking ANC.
Cry, the Beloved Country. Again.
With respect to the Law, when we look back at these past eight years, what do we have to show for it? And I acknowledge your comments Shakira. However, can anyone deny that the judiciary is not seriously weakened, and that our Constitution is not under systemic and deliberate attack. The law protects all of us only if it is strong, compassionate and wise and based on precedent and jurisprudence of excellence, and in South Africa Justice is now wilting at the stem its wortels suffocating. Can we really respect South African Justice, I think not. They have a case themselves to prove, to we the citizens.
The road to dictatorship has precise and systematic steps and these start with a deliberate undermining of justice, media, freedom of dissent, emotively corralling the youth, and intimidating the populace. Your ozoneblob, Prof, is a perfect example, and likely paid to write garbage spin on your blog. A young soul, a mentor of mine would describe him.
I never liked Mibeki. Aids, Zimbabwe, centralized power and abuse of service delivery, but I think I understand why he and his comrades were so worried about Zuma and what his ascendancy would mean for South Africa. I think that gang might actually have been trying to protect us. A pity they failed. A pity they broke the law.
A close friend of mine who writes for Die Burger was quoted in one of their editorials after Zuma’s election as ANC president. It went thus, loosely translated in English:
“When the vinegar is off to start with, the result is inevitably disastrous.” is this not already the state of the nation.
Zuma is the new Big Man of Africa, witness his convoys, witness the separation and fear he creates. We’re just at the beginning.
“Collusion” (on the timing) be damned. This is standard procedure as any state prosecutor will tell you. He/she will call the investigating officer to discuss when it will be suitable to proceed – if at all. For God’s sake – they *have* to talk to each other.
sirjay jonson @ 6:47 pm
“but I think I understand why he and his comrades were so worried about Zuma and what his ascendancy would mean for South Africa. I think that gang might actually have been trying to protect us. A pity they failed. A pity they broke the law.”
Excellent post even if it demonstrates quite clearly the hypocritical, anti-democratic and anti-constitutional sentiments behind and in support for the political agenda against Zuma.
Mean time : the one politician who has been at the forefront of the battle for democracy and the main proponent for investigation into the corrupt arms deals : who initially provided the evidence to judge William Heath (anybody remember when he was the “good guy” ) – her honorable Patricia de Lille has done the right thing: laid charges against Ngcuka and McCarthy.
“The charges have been laid in terms of Section 32 (1) (b) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, which reads: ‘Subject to the Constitution and this act, no organ of state, and no member or employee of an organ of state nor any other person shall improperly interfere with, hinder or obstruct the prosecuting authority or any member thereof in the exercise, carrying out or performance of its, his or her powers, duties and functions’,” De Lille said in a statement.”
Prof? Why didn’t Mpshe follow the ‘audi alteram partem’ rule in regard to McCarthy? This seems strange, and creates the impression that McCarthy is guitly until proven innocent, while the reverse is true for Zuma! This does not seem correct to my mind. Okay, so now Zuma will be president. He certainly is a determined man. Now he will have to show the world he is the leader the ANC holds him to be. This will not be easy. Liberation movements hardly ever make a smooth transition to democracy. Just look north for proof of that. So he will have his work cut out for him. Poor man. And then there is Zille, and millions of others who will watch his every move and speak out about him, right or wrong, and they will do this for years. Does he have the capacity? Can this nation take it? Somehow I don’t think so. And at the end of it all we would have come far, but not moved an inch!
Whatever decisions on ZUMA, taken by whom-so-ever (courts/NPA), still has/had the nation divided EXACTLY as before these/those decisions are/were taken! What does this tell SOBER person? Genoeg is Genoeg, Let us move on! I dont care if there was political pressure on the NPA to drop, all I know is that this decision is good for the country, somehow i know deep down, ALL OF US AGREE. If we leave the merits/demerits of Mpshe s decision – really now, We were boud to break-off from this Nation-dividing issue somehow anyway! God knows, we ve got to move on!
I’m curious.
Why would Mpshe base his decision on incomplete and subjective information?
Unless Ngcuka is lying, this is what the NPA writes in its disclaimer concerning the taped conversation:
“…In some instances the discussion has been paraphrased …The NPA has added comments on the recordings that explain issues that are not very clear, or where information inside the NPA by corroborates the conversations. We should stress that these are our own tentative comments and that further investigation may cast more light on these issues…”
Would this kind of evidence by Mpshe be admissible in any court-of-law?
http://www.politics web.co.za/ politicsweb/ view/politicsweb /en/page71619? oid=124596&sn=Detail
Let’s not forget to focus on the curious events of the day in the SCA as Hlophe was again absent…reading the article in the M&G about this, with the new lawyers who suddenly are fired, etc., it seems very strange…..
Dear Prof
I have to take issue with you on your comment ” – without giving Mr Leonard McCarthy a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty..”
If I could refer you to a letter I wrote to the Sunday Times of 29 March. I explained that the term innocent until proven guilty is a “grossly distorted precis of an important legal convention”.
Of course, it is a very important convention, which is why it is generally enshrined in law in all civilised societies. (In our case, Section 35, paragraph 3, clause h, of the Bill of Rights).
This provides that, for the purpose of court proceedings, the accused will have the benefit of being presumed innocent at at the outset. It is up to the accusers to demonstrate, if they can, that the presumption is wrong. The accusers, whether they be the State, or just private individuals, do not have to presume innocence. After all, they are the ones who are alleging guilt, on the grounds of the evidence they intend to bring.
It is not within the power of the NPA to grant, or deny, Leonard McCarthy the right of presumed innocence. Presumed innocence only comes into play if the matter comes to Court. If the NPA believes that McCarthy is guilty of something, they are quite entitled to that belief, and welcome to see if they can convince a court.
By the same token, I, and many others, believe that Jacob Zuma is guilty. We do not have to presume that he is de facto innocent, when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Only the Court, if and when it ever sits on the matter, has to start out with the presumption of LEGAL innocence.
I think it is time for society to be corrected on its sloppy misuse of the term “innocent until proven guilty.” It is not meant to be a shield behind which crooks can evade justice. Have you ever heard an innocent man invoke such a defence? Clearly not. An innocent man does not need it. He goes to Court, knowing that the Court will hold him innocent anyway, and when his accusers cannot prove their case, he walks away with his innocence intact.
Guilty parties, on the other hand, fully aware of their guilt, rely heavily on the maxim, hoping desperately that the evidence won’t come out, or the prosecution will somehow botch things so they can get off on a technicality.
Persons of influence, like those of you in the legal profession, and the journalists who influence us in the press, should take the lead in restating this maxim. A person is only LEGALLY innocent unless proven LEGALLY guilty. De facto guilt, or innocence, rests entirely on whether the person did the deed, or didn’t. And accusers have the right to allege guilt, while those accused have the right to declare innocence. The Court, and only the Court, has the duty to presume innocence, and the right to rule in favour of one party or the other.
PM @ 3:36 am
So what has happened to PdV now? Perhaps he decided to emigrate to Australia? LOL.
As I pointed out yesterday – this is not only about Zuma. There is also the accusations brought against Mac Maharaj bu never prosecuted and then there was Ngoako Ramatlhodi.
And I’m convinced that is just the tip of the iceberg. Lets see now how the NPA investigation against Zuma kicked of:
“Recalling how he became involved in the Shaik/Zuma investigation, Downer told The Star in 2005: “I was at a braai in February, 2001. It was a Saturday night. (Ex-Scorpions boss) Leonard McCarthy phoned me and said I must come to Pretoria. He said he had something I would like.”"
So why would Billy Downer “like” the case. Or was that just light-hearted banter at a typical CCB style Saturday afternoon braai as the boys were getting lekker gesuip after they have done their “counter-revolutionary work” for the week.
Prof, you really never cease to amaze me man! What, in God s name, did you mean on SAFM just now, by your ” I doubt if the court will be BRAVE ENOUGH …” to rule in DA s favour? Not only have you ‘put your foot in it!’ but to me, interacting with you daily on this blog, I am utterly disguted to say the least! Not only did your stupid statement effectively UNDERMINE THE JUDICIARY (on air), but it also put the judiciary under UNDUE PRESSURE to find against Mpshe, so as to be “brave enough”. I dont give a damn about your shamed-schoolboy-like reasons you gave when Tim Modise, and indeed Adv Smith of the DA , expressed “shock and worry” about your ‘brave enough’ statement. In fact, the more you tried to explain what you meant, the more you contradicted, embarassed, compromised and SHAMED yourself Professor De Vos! Sies!!!
Finally a probe into the tapes
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2498285,00.html
This should have been done first before the charges were dropped.
Ozone im still wating for you to take me up on my challenge winkie puff
Shakira,
You said that there is no need for despair. I am by nature an optimist, but there is one scenario unfolding that could become grounds for despair.
Aside from stating that Mr Zuma is innocent,a nd that the NPA has agreed with this, the ANC is also saying that anyone who questions the decision of the NPA, or “interferes” is undermining the rule of law or meddling in the justice system
The ANC would like the whole issue to neatly go away (as they have done with the arms deal from the start). If it will not go away, and if people continue criticising and digging up information, then will the ANC stand by as the details slowly get out to their voting constituency, and to the world?
If they will not tolerate people criticising and exposing, then what will we have?
Ozoneblue
“How it doesn’t seem to phase or bother you that more than three years after Ngcuka resigned as DNPA – the previous head of the very powerful state prosecution agency now a private citizen,”
You should do comedy, really its your calling
Private citizen??? can you explain how Zuma a “PRIVATE CITIZEN” can get top government secret tapes from a NIA? oh i forgot Zuma was part of the intellegence back in the day and has buddies in the NIA….most of them seem to be MEC’s
I think Ngcuka and McCarthy should sue the NPA and Zuma and declare that they will not get a “FAIR and FREE TRIAL” as they are being made guilty by the “MEDIA” as both of them have not listened to the tapes on these bases
As HLOPHE would say they infringed on my constitutional rights
(i) There were and are no official transcripts of the recordings available;
(ii) In some instances, the discussions between me and Adv McCarthy have been paraphrased by the NPA;
(iii) The NPA has on its own decided which parts of the recordings are relevant or important for the context of a particular discussion. Also, the NPA has left out of the published extracts those parts of the recordings the NPA itself considered not relevant to the context of the discussions between me and McCarthy;
(iv) The NPA has itself added comments on the recordings to explain issues it considered not clear; and
(v) Most importantly, the NPA stresses that its comments on the transcripts are ‘tentative’ and that further investigations may cast more light on their view of the issues they have commented on.
Ngcuka and McCarthy will not get a FAIR AND FREE TRIAL IT IS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THEM AND THE ARE BEING TRIAD BY THE MEDIA!!!!
sorry just using ANC tactics
i dont know how ozneblue and spuy or spam whatever his name is can be so happy here….the big picture is the ANC has damaged the NPA for its own purposes…no one really won here to be honest here….Zuma is not a working class hero, he has been found to be corrupt
I wonder how easy it is to dangle a carret over someone who is “acting” over a position?
Spuy // Apr 8, 2009 at 7:56 am
You are right!!!
I have always said that Pierre’s agenda is less than honest. I also heard him showing his true colors.
He does the same thing everyday on Mbeki. It is the Helen Suzman mentality. I stay on this blog just to correct the lies and the deception that he peddles. When we do that we are called trolls.
But we will not tire. The truth shall out!!!
Khosi, you may justifiably call Pierre many terrible names. But to accuse him of a “Helen Suzman mentality” is well below the belt. We all know what a pernicious role Suzman played, sitting for decades as the single opposition member in Parliament runs by the National Party.
Pierre is awful, indeed. But at least he has never been a “liberal” He has never sunk to the depths plumbed by the racist/imperialist PFP.
(BTW, let us thank God that South African has not pursued the capitalist path that Suzman and her liberal fellow-travellers always stood for!))
My comment/query pertains to another ‘reckless gamble’.
The Interim Constitution (Act 200, 1993), which is now repealed, sets out the establishment and size of the Human Rights Commission. Section 115(1) stated;
“There shall be a Human Rights Commission, which shall consist of a chairperson and 10 members who are fit
and proper persons, South African citizens and broadly representative of the South African community”
This should have been used in section 3 of the Human Rights Commission Act, Act 54 of 1994, (a current act), as a legal framework for the appointment of Commissioners.
In 2002 only five full-time Commissioners and one part-time Commissioner were appointed by the President, even though Parliament recommended the legally and constitutionally required eleven candidates for appointment. The Presidency argued correctly that Act 54 required that ‘there should be at least five full-time Commissioners’ and conveniently ‘ignored’ the other legal requirement, i.e. the amount of eleven. At this stage the Interim Constitution was repealed, but in terms of the Interpretation Act, if mention is made of parts of a repealed Act in a current Act, then those parts are still in force!
The implication is that we have an unconstitutional and illegal SA Human Rights Commission! This has major implications, especially for the marginalised and poor citizens, who the SAHRC have to assist to enforce their human rights. I pointed this out to Parliament, the Presidency and the SAHRC, but they do not have the moral or political will to address the matter.
What is your view?
G Campher
Mike Atkins // Apr 8, 2009 at 8:28 am
“Aside from stating that Mr Zuma is innocent,a nd that the NPA has agreed with this, the ANC is also saying that anyone who questions the decision of the NPA, or “interferes” is undermining the rule of law or meddling in the justice system”
“The ANC would like the whole issue to neatly go away (as they have done with the arms deal from the start)”
Yes, obviously they want the issue to go away and they want people to accept the NPA’s decision, move on and accept their Presidential Candidate as a fit and proper person.
But they have no control over whether people accept it or not. The issue won’t just go away because they want it to go away.
The same can be said for the arms deal. When people started asking questions about the arms deal years ago, the ANC’s first reaction was also to try and close the lid on it and shut down debate.
But it didn’t go away, did it? Years after the deal was closed it is still haunting them and it has cost many in the ANC dearly.
“If it will not go away, and if people continue criticising and digging up information, then will the ANC stand by as the details slowly get out to their voting constituency, and to the world?”
I get the sense that you are suggesting something more ominous here. What exactly are you suggesting the ANC might do in order to stifle debate, and on what do you base it?
Also take note of Thomas Blaser’s comments on Apr 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm. There are also examples in other western democracies of abuse of power by the ruling party not mentioned in his post and further examples of it in the US under the Bush administration.
Following the withdrawal of criminal charges against Mr Zuma by the NPA on the basis of the contents of the audio tapes, which were produces by the National Intelligence Agency and then passed on to the Zuma team, a comment. The charges were dropped, according to the NPA, because the process followed to prosecute Mr Zuma was flawed, even though there might be a prima facie against him. We can add that the damning evidence, which set Mr Zuma free, was also obtained through a flawed (illegal) process. It is clear that someone in the NIA is still loyal to Mr Zuma, who was the ANC’s Intelligence Chief during the struggle years. This person believed that loyalty to Mr Zuma supersedes the intelligence laws of this country.
This begs the question; ‘Was justice served, even though many laws were broken?’
I will have to take the long-route to answer this question, because concepts like justice and fairness are ethical and not legal terms. When something is legal, it does not mean that it is fair or just – take the Apartheid laws, for example. Apartheid was legal, but it was not ethical. The ethical supersedes the legal, because the legal framework of a country is based on its ethical values. However, as with everything, those people that have the power and the access can use legal instruments and state power to further their own agendas. The people that are always on the receiving end are the voiceless, poor and marginalised. If Mr Zuma was an ordinary citizen, without the support of Cosatu and the SACP, then he would have been in prison, like so many other marginalised citizens.
In conclusion, have justice been served?
You be the judge!
G Campher
http://www.greens.org.za
Shakira, who in the ANC has suffered as a result of the arms deal? There has been a gigantic kerfuffle around the arms deal, mostly promoted by conservative people with anti-ANC political agendas (which does not mean that nothing they say is true, but does mean they deserve more scrutiny than they have received). At the end of the day, a small group of people were punished under the Mbeki government — Yengeni went to “jail” for a bit, Nyanda had to resign — and then they all regrouped around Zuma and were able, with massive support from big business, the press, and the self-styled left, to defeat Mbeki and hound him and his allies out of office and scoop the political pool. And they did this, in part, because it was claimed that Mbeki rather than them was the big fish in the arms deal.
Ironically, nobody seems to care a toss about the actual arms deal itself nor the real political-economic consequences of it. It’s just a device for political manipulation.
What are the chances of McCarthy’s bid for the NPA to start an inquiry into the arms deal being effective?
How much of a chance does the DA application to have the Zuma decision reviewed have?
None. See, Hlope is going to have a curious yet serious bout of influenza until after election day and then he’ll mysteriously become chief justice. The aptly named Judge Pius will object to his sacking, after which an enquiry will find that Judge Pius did nothing but a great job, only he neglected national security (or some other half-baked excuse that will take two seconds of thumb suck and three weeks or so worth of tax payer money before it is announced).
Well, 14 years of a constitutional democracy are not that bad. We should salvage them now because they’re gone.
Prof PdV wrote:-
> It is clear that where a person is charged but the purpose of
> charging a person was never to secure a conviction the case
> could not proceed.
Please tell, what is the logic behind such a ‘principle’ ?
Does ‘purpose’ refer to the mental state of the charge initiator ?
Or is it a matter of certain essential assertions missing from
the record ?
If a person is charged, and found not guilty, and during the
investigation and trial new evidence emerges which would make
him [probably] guilty of a different ‘charge’, is this new
[potential] charge, in any why barred ?
== TIA.
[...] Speaking » A reckless gamble – all for nothing By | Published: April 7, 2009 Constitutionally Speaking » A reckless gamble – all for nothing Source: constitutionallyspea… The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) yesterday acted [...]