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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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

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!))

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!!!