The ANC is using a new “argument” to try and avoid any criticism of Jacob Zuma, its seemingly corrupt leader, and a possible decision by the NPA to drop all the charges against him. But this “argument” is so stunningly misguided and shows such a spectacular misunderstanding of basic constitutional concepts such as the Rule of Law that one can only wonder about the integrity or intellectual abilities of those who make it.
This argument suggests that those of us who – in the absence of a plausible and convincing explanation – are worried that political and not legal considerations led to the dropping of charges against Zuma, are undermining the Rule of Law. Jacob Zuma suggested those who have questioned the move by the NPA to review the case against him and have expressed fears about the dropping of charges are undermining the criminal justice system and the NPA.
In a carefully choreographed campaign launched by the ANC in anticipation of the dropping of charges, Jessie – “Bull Dog” – Duarte then called this “rank opportunism”. “While the DA claims it respects due legal process, it will only do so if the outcome of that process serves its own political purposes,” Duarte said. At the same time Mathhews Phosa has written a completely muddled and legally misguided article in the Sunday Times in which he claimed section 179(5)(d)(iii) of the constitution gave Zuma a constitutional right to make representations to the NPA and that those questioning this move have made the constitution “their plaything, which they use to substantiate their political campaigns, instead of applying it consistently in the manner and spirit for which it was crafted”.
This ANC campaign is so cynical and so transparent that one is tempted to ignore it. But this argument was obviously workshopped by the cabal trying to get the President of the ANC off the hook by trying to intimidate those of us who might point to the elephant in the room, namely that the NPA as recently as last month told the Constitutional Court that they had a winnable case against Zuma. This argument will obviously be trotted out again and again in the coming days to try and divert attention from the rather inconvenient fact that Mr Zuma received R4 million and then did favours for the crooks from whom he received the money.
(Not even the most craven Zuma acolyte has denied that Zuma received money from a crook and then did favours for him,because that would be like denying the earth is round or that HIV causes Aids – well, good thing Thabo Mbeki is not on Zuma’s side!)
So, maybe it is worth while to point out how absurd and intellectually dishonest this line of “reasoning” is. And, hey, I am a lecturer after all, so let me give these miscreants a quick lesson on the Constitution and the law.
First, Phosa is dead wrong when he says Zuma has a constitutional right to make representations to the NPA. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently found that when the National Director of Public Prosecutions revisits his own decision to charge or not to charge someone, the suspect has no constitutional right to make representations to the NPA. Phosa is therefore either worryingly uninformed, or he is trying to mislead the public (a nicer way of saying that he might be lying).
Second, the concerns about the dropping of charges against Zuma is based on a concern that it would signal a profound disrespect for the Rule of Law. At its most basic, the principle of the Rule of Law requires the state and independent institutions like the NPA to act in terms of the law. This means that these institutions cannot act in an arbitrary or capricious fashion, cannot act in bad faith, but must follow the law – regardless of the political exigencies.
Where the law sets out clear requirements for the dropping of charges against a suspect – as our law, embodied in the prosecutions policy, so obviously does – the Rule of Law requires the NPA to adhere to these requirements. If it failed to adhere to the law, it would be clear that it was acting in contravention of the Rule of Law and that its decision was politically motivated.
The ANC cabal is in effect making the deeply troubling argument that respect for the Rule of Law should include respect for potentially illegal decisions taken by a constitutional body like the NPA. In a kind of Orwellian double speak, they are pretending to defend the Rule of Law while supporting its potential demise.
If the NPA drops charges against Zuma, despite the fact that all available evidence suggest that Mr Zuma has a very serious case to answer, the decision might well be illegal. But the ANC heavies are now saying with the chutzpah of a man trying to sell ice to the Eskimo’s that if we point this out, we are undermining the Rule of Law. How dare we demand decisions based on the law and not on the political interests of the governing party. I mean really, who are we after all – we did not even donate any money to the ANC election campaign so how dare we have any opinion! After all, the interest of the Party and its Dear Leader is far more important than obeying the law.
If the NPA drops charges against Zuma despite the fact that a winnable case exists against him, this would not constitute “due legal process” as Ms Duarte seems to think. It would constitute the most flagrant abuse of power and the law and would thus undermine respect for the Rule of Law. Pointing this out would be an herioc fact, something seemingly lost on the scoundrels in the ANC spin machine.
That is why the NPA has a duty to explain a decision to drop charges against Jacob Zuma in full. They will have to present us with a cogent and logical explanation why the LAW required them to drop the charges. Only then will we be able to say whether this was a flagrant, illegal, act by NPA or something done in terms of the legal rules. I fear this is not going to happen.
I fear what will happen is that charges will be dropped without a proper explanation. The result would be that we will be stuck with a President who took millions of Rands from a crook and a seemingly corrupt arms company and then did favours for the crook and the arms company. Even if Mr Zuma is then never charged, we would then have every right to assume that he is a crook too.
I would think that if this happens we would all even be safe in calling him a crook. This is because if he wanted to sue anyone who calls him a crook, that person will only have to show on a preponderance of probabilities that it is true that Zuma is a crook. This will not be too difficult to prove – unless Mr Zuma’s lawyers have produced startling new evidence about his motives for taking the money and doing the favours.
If it came to this and I was an opposition leader, I would immediately call a press conference and call Mr Zuma a crook. I will then dare Zuma to sue me for defamation and will point out that a failure to sue will constitute an admission of guilt. I will then sit back and remind the public every three months that Mr Zuma has not yet sued – despite issuing the inevitable threats to do so.
Mr Zuma would then also not be able to complain that we have to respect his right to be considered innocent until proven guilty because that right only attaches to an accused in a criminal trial – which Mr Zuma will then never be. Patricia, hoe lyk dit?
Prof? I admire your courage. However, these people you write of read these sentences of yours. They won’t forget. So, for what it is worth, I am on your side, no, that is wrong, I am one the side of the law. Keep writing. I’ll keep reading. Critical thinking is such a rare quality.
As a chess player of many years, I can say “Pierre’s Gambit” will go down in the political books as an example of how not to paint yourself in a corner!
I am not a lawyer, but had a brush with the cronies which led me to study the Prevention & Combatting of Corruption Act. This piece of legislation, prohibits, if I understand it correctly, much of the attempts to influence judicial process and abuse of power that fill SA’s headlines these days.
Another bit of this Act makes it illegal to use information the way Zuma & his team appear to have used the “tapes” (or other bit of hot information) – especially the much-publicised threats by Zuma to “spill the beans” as he appears to have done.
To my non-lawyerly mind, surely Zuma -and his former cronies – should be charged under this legislation?
I’m curious for your opinion.
I challenge all new members of Parliament belonging to parties other than the ANC to arrive at all of the various inauguration ceremonies wearing T-shirts that proclaim, “Corrupt President, corrupt government”.
In fact, why not do it until Mr Zuma steps down as President?
Cucme, “Pierre’s gambit” has become stale and outdated just like the King’s gambit. Prof should try my favourite Budapest Gambit!
Sometimes I wonder if Prof has split personality. When I hear him speak on radio/TV about issues relating to Zuma, I can not believe that he is the same person who writes this blog!
Pierre – a very good post. I admire our energy and courage.
There’s going to be a lot of very powerful people that hate you.
Frustrating times, well if the NPA do drop chargers they will have to go to the high court and explain why, there is no way that this will be left off the hook.
Great post, Pierre.
I can’t wait for the next installment of Days of our South African Lives…
Pierre,
If the NPA decides to drop the charges against Zuma, we will have to accept it and move on. We will go to the polls on 22 April 2009 and the South African voters will make the decision as to whether Zuma should be the President or not.
We should be careful of not being so desperate in not wanting Zuma as President that we want the NPA and the courts to do for us what we know may not be achieved at the polls.
Shakira,
While there is a certain pragmatic realism in what you say, you imply that people should never take a stand for truth or right and wrong. If at first truth does not succeed, just get on with your life and try and make the best of the new environment.
This approach would have left slavery, nazism and aparthied all sitting happly in place.
You also read into people’s motives that their argumnents about the law are mere blinds for their a priori personal preferences against Mr Zuma. Not so. There are very many people who are distressed not so much at the fact of a Zuma Presidency, but rather at what it will have taken to attain it – namely the cynical destruction of the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.
And we have a Constitution precisely because there are certain circumstances in which the law must place constraints on who may be elected by “the people”. We do not have a “democracy”, we have a “constitutional democracy”.
It is precisely because of the known limits and failing of mere democracy that there are constitutional protections. As has been pointed out so well, we have had Phosa, Duarte and Zuma all saying that the ANC is upholding the “rule of law”, and that the mere act of questioning them is somehow a violation of the Constitution and the rule of law.
These recent utterings are amongst the most craven and cynical distortions of truth, law and logic that I have ever seen. In fact, to trump these, one would need to turn t Robert Mugabe blaming the West for the utter destruction of hos own country and people.
There will always be a lot of people who will accommodate and adapt, accepting injustice because it is just too hard to stand.
Very good post Prof, I would love to be your doctor to see your blood preasure in the days to come, I’m sure it is going to be off the charts. lol
What really concerns me however, is the fact that these very powerfull people (and I include Selebi here) are setting precedents that actually make the administration of justice much tougher than it already is.
Sadly, with an unlimited budget, one can take every avenue offered by law no matter how illogical it is. While the very poor that the government calims to champion are left to foot the bill.
Shakira, I tend to agree with you in as much as we have a problematic tendency in South Africa to run to courts to solve essentially political problems. My issue is not with wanting to get rid of Zuma via the courts to prevent him from becoming President. I have an open mind about whether he will be a good President or not. He seems likable and lacks the outsized ego of some other politicians, so he listens to others and seems to have empathy. What bothers me very much is what this will do to respect for the Rule of Law and to the credibility of the NPA and what signal this will send to every petty bureaucrat and dodgy businessman. Once we send a signal that if you are important and powerful, know someone important and powerful, have money or is a member of the ANC you can get away with anything, we are on a very dangerous and slippery slope towards an endemic corrupt state. Rich people do not rely on the state as much as poor people to make their lives bearable, so it will be the marginalised and downtrodden who have no friends in high places or are not friends with ANC bigwigs who will suffer the most because if they cannot pay a bribe they will not get the services our constitution promises them. This will delegitimise the political process and the constitution and powerless people will suffer. And we will only decide we had enough when it will be very difficult to change the culture of impunity. But then again, the USA survived 8 years of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, so maybe we will muddle through.
Mike Atkins // Mar 31, 2009 at 10:34 am
You actually spot on, at the moment you have presidential candidate who has been placed above the law, with R100 Million that has been spent on security of one person as well as the same amount being spent on that person trying to stay out of courts instead of using that money to clear his name. He is not innocent in the eyes of the law….an innocent person does not have a dark cloud hanging over his head.
Mike you are right in every since that South Africa is a constitutional democracy and its the constitution that runs the country….so i will agree on my ethics and on my morals that a person should be equal before elected to the highest office of the land. Zuma is not equal he is over and above
So much damage has already been inflicted on South Africa by the arms deal and Zuma, so much time and energy wasted, truly a dead albatross with fishing weights dragging us under dark waters to a fate none of us want. How many hundreds of millions has this debacle cost and no end in sight?
If the NPA drops the charges against Zuma, for South Africa it will be like the twin towers in New York falling, the Palestinians celebrating in the streets while millions mourn.
It could be the beginning of the end or a dramatic new awakening. We wait with hearts and breath abated.
“At its most basic, the principle of the Rule of Law requires the state and independent institutions like the NPA to act in terms of the law.”
And this exactly where PdV’s increasingly convoluted, desperate and frankly pathetic attempts to side track the real issues away form the highly compromised NPA to the the Zuma case falls flat. All evidence is pointing to the fact that the NPA was at no stage “independent” . In fact – they were so compromised there is no reason to believe they didn’t manufacture evidence.
PdV will obviously sing another tune if a politically compromised NPA under a different regime starts casting the corruption magnifying glass over his favorite politicians.
ozoneblue // Mar 31, 2009 at 11:28 am
you do know you shoot yourself in the foot everytime you speak………if the NPA is comromised it is not because of Mbeki or Zuma but because of the ANC that is the real issue but yet you still set in your native tribal wars
ozoneblue // Mar 31, 2009 at 11:28 am
side track the real issues? The real issues? So much effort has been spent on discrediting everyone else that in the eyes of Zuma supporters the “real issues” have become things like the “compromised NPA”.
To everyone else the “real issue” is R4M that has been recieved from a convicted fraudster and favours that has been done for that crook.
Its so simple guys, just clear up that one little “misunderstanding” for us and we’ll all breathe a sigh of relief and even admit we were wrong. We’ll even forget the comments made about showering etc..
DJL // Mar 31, 2009 at 11:54 am
Fact is if the NPA wasn’t abused for political purposes – if Zuma was guilty he would be in prison long time ago. Same thing happened to Mac Maharaj : his name slanderer all over the front pages but the NPA never prosecuted. As I said before : sooner or later those who are cheering now will be in the same boat and they will not only change their tune. It is absolutely bizarre that a “constitutional expert” cannot see the wood from the trees.
Ozneblue ill say this again then why are you are clearly you can see the wood from the trees, why arnt you a constitutional expert.
I got a question for you, what would it mean to you if the chargers are dropped? your own ego? or the NPA is tainted and forget the fact your sitting with a damged president or isnt innocent in the eyes of the law?
see these are the questions you need to ask yourself its the basics of ethic and morals….or maybe this frightens you
ozoneblue // Mar 31, 2009 at 11:28 am
“In fact – they were so compromised there is no reason to believe they didn’t manufacture evidence.”
If we accept this contention as been fact, why is it that he is attempting to block evidence from coming from Mauritius. Are you saying that even the Mauritian authorities have been compromised.
Are you also saying that it is acceptable for high ranking government officials to do favours for business people in exchange for favours? These are the facts as we know them so where does the ‘convolution’ come into it.
We need now to hear Zuma’s explanation, perhaps there is a ‘legally acceptable explanation’.
Pierre De Vos // Mar 31, 2009 at 10:50 am
“Rich people do not rely on the state as much as poor people to make their lives bearable, so it will be the marginalised and downtrodden who have no friends in high places or are not friends with ANC bigwigs who will suffer the most because if they cannot pay a bribe they will not get the services our constitution promises them. This will delegitimise the political process and the constitution and powerless people will suffer.”
The marginalised and downtrodden are not powerless. They have the power to vote the ANC out of power if they perceive them to be corrupt or if they are unhappy about service delivery. Because this is really where the ruling party’s disrespect for the rule of law should be punished – at the polls.
But because we know this is probably not going to happen (at least not in 2009) we desperately cling to our only hope – the prosecution and conviction of Zuma. Its time to let go.
All indications are there that the majority of the South African people want Zuma to be their President. The argument that the majority of the delegates at Polokwane want him and not necessarily the majority of South Africans, does not really hold water. Anybody who votes for the ANC on 22 April 2009 is under no illusion that they are voting for Zuma to be President.
We may call them ignorant or stupid, but the fact of the matter is that for some reason or other, they believe that that things will be better for them under a Zuma Presidency. They should be given the opportunity to either have their expectations of Zuma met during his term in office, or be utterly disappointed.
Zuma and Ozone Blue – The Corrupt leading the Psychosomatically Blind.
Ozoneblue,
Everyone gives you a hard time, but you go at this very manfully (my apolgies if I have made a gender error here).
You know, for me this has nothing to do with who my “favourite” politician is (I don’t really have favourites except perhaps an MPL from a minority party who happens to be a personal firend). This is not Idols or Big Brother or the Premier League (though it sometimes feels a bit like Survivor)..
We have had this incredible opportunity to rebuild a country, starting again without having been utterly destroyed. But no, here we are tearing apart the very institutions that so many paid such a high price to obtain – and all in the interests of one man and his cabal of supporters. And yes, I am appalled at the abuse of state resources by Mr Mbeki and his acolytes (like the infamous “plot” by Sexwale, Ramaphosa and Phosa).
By the way, do you feel that dropping the charges is a suitable response to the reported meddling in the NPA? Let’s just leave it all behind and move on?
But how precisely would dropping the charges make up to the nation, us, for the wrongs that were perpetrated? Or is it actually all about JZ? And what should happen about the charges against Thint?
Mike Atkins @ 12:48 pm
My pov on this is very clear. You either fairly and consistently prosecute the entire mob of compromised arms-deal gravy trainers – or you drop it.
It is in fact a very simple principle that most people appreciate in their every day lives. You go 90 in the 80 zone, get caught and see a whole bunch of fellow offenders being excused because they know the cop or they payed a bribe. Is that justice : I say hell no – one of the pillars of true justice is the very concept of being “equal before the law”.
ozoneblue @ 1:30
for the first time i like what you said. and impressed but im afriad this isnt a fluffy world and we have to hold leaders to account no matter what it takes because they set the example.
but honestly you start having more views like that we might even be friends.
@Ozone. Bantu says that we removed sitting Pres for the one with a police docket.
So are you suggesting that the charge sheet be decided upon on the 22nd of April?
Ozonblue, for once we agree! Let’s prosecute the lot!
Ozoneblue, it is true that Zuma is NOT the biggest fish in the arms deal scandal. But Zuma is not a fall guy. He met with Thompson CSF and after the meeting Shaik became their preferred partner and they won an arms deal bid. Then he met again with Thetard from Thompson CSF after which a bribe was paid to him (according to Squires, SCA and CC) and he stopped protecting the members of Scopa who were trying to investigate the corruption of the arms deal. Surely the solution is not to let Zuma get away because others got away, but to ensure nobody gets away. That seems to me the only ethically tenable solution. Your solution that will let everyone off the hook (because Zuma was “unfairly” targeted) implicitly condones the corruption of the arms deal and argues for impunity. If the NPA is not doing its job, ANC members and Zuma supporters should surely argue for the NPA to do its job and should be outrages by them not prosecuting everyone and should call on the NPA to vigorously pursue the arms deal corruption no matter where it may lead?
Pierre De Vos @ 2:59 pm
“He met with Thompson CSF and after the meeting Shaik became their preferred partner and they won an arms deal bid.”
And honestly now Pierre, you up there in your academic ivory tower, how many other deals just like that happened then during the arms deal and are still happening every day in our BEE corporate boardrooms ?
Yet you are one of the main defenders of that corrupt BEE are you not ?
ozoneblue @ at 4:06 pm
Pierre De Vos @ 2:59 pm
“He met with Thompson CSF and after the meeting Shaik became their preferred partner and they won an arms deal bid.”
And honestly now Pierre, you up there in your academic ivory tower, how many other deals just like that happened then during the arms deal and are still happening every day in our BEE corporate boardrooms ?
is that a concession on your part that it happened?
Prof,
Can someone explaint o me who could possibly be a bigger fish than Mr Zuma? If you say Mbeki,n then I would dispute that a former President is a bigger fish than the Presicdent of the ruling party and current presidential candidate.
It could mean that a bigger crime was committed, but there is hard evidence now of what Mr Zuma did, but a lot of rumours about what others may have done (including Mbeki). He may well be guilty of some crimes, but at the moment this is all suggestion, and the NPA would have a lot of work to do before it had a case ready. And if you say that Zuma has that evidence, whay has he ot brought it forward before now? Concealment of a crime is a criminal offence. A man who only brought forwar evidence of crimes to settle scores or save himself from prosecution is hardly fit to be president.
Or, is someone suggesting that Mr Mandela is guilty of corruptio in respect of the arms deal?
shakira @ 4:26 pm
You will be surprised to hear that it happens every day as we speak. It is a called BEE : but should rather be called BFB – Business For Buddies.
I have posted on this months before – the fact that Shaik clinched some BEE deals because of his friendship with Zuma, within the context of how “unregulated” BEE was at the time proves absolutely zilch about Zuma’s frame of mind.
We shold prosecute the whole damn lot of them, and I’m relatively sure that, with a NPA under a man like Vusi Pikoli, we would’ve got there eventually. Unfortunately, several of those people who would’ve eventually been prosecuted were instrumental in the demise of the organisation that might prosecute them, and investigators are leaving in droves because they don’t want to work under a man who has ties to organised crime.
Also, if Zuma hadn’t lied, and had really had his day in court like he said he wanted, instead of playing this silly runaround game, he would’ve been found guilty or innocent and then other prosecutions could’ve taken place. It was only logical to prosecute Zuma after Shaik was found guilty, because the two cases are so closely linked.
Why do the ANC and Zuma supporters seem hell-bent on clinging to the idea that this is a personal vendetta against Zuma as a person? Are these people really so ignorant and blindly loyal that they cannot or refuse to contemplate the idea that it’s not such a good thing to have a criminal (or suspected criminal) as head of the country?
“Why do the ANC and Zuma supporters seem hell-bent on clinging to the idea that this is a personal vendetta against Zuma as a person?”
It is not a vendetta against Zuma as a person. It is a vendetta against Zuma and his “left-leaning” allies. And I as you know when you were fighting the “rooi gevaar” under Apartheid – once your caught in such a ideological battle against such overwhelmingly evil forces anything goes – even abusing the state power to undermine and discredit the enemies of the state.
According to The Times, Tlali Tlali, NPA spokesman told journalists at the OR Tambo International Airport that there were procedures that the prosecuting authority needed to go through before the final decision is made.
Tlali has just let the cat out of the bag. What kind of procedures should the NPA go through to announce that they were going ahead with the prosecution? None, if you ask me.
On the other hand, there are procedures that are needed to go through, such as informing the necessary judges, before making an announcement that they are dropping the charges.
We don’t have to wait for Friday. The decision has been made and charges against Zuma have effectively been dropped.
The NPA is certainly taking their time in making a decision. Now we are told it’s Friday. Experience tells me the longer you apply your mind, the better the decision is at the end. This can mean only one thing: there will be a select few who are going to be barking mad at the NPS’s decision. And then we’ll can expect all those Narrative Fallacies…lol.
Have you conviniently decided to misquote the Secretary-General Mathew Phosa.
This is a direct quotation from his article “Section 179(5)(d)(iii) of the constitution makes its clear that the NPA may review its decision to prosecute any accused by taking representations from such an accused, and any other group or individual, who have an interest in such a prosecution”
but you have translated this to
“section 179(5)(d)(iii) of the constitution gave Zuma a constitutional right to make representations to the NPA”
This is sad of our media who claim to have the best interest of South Africa when they have their own minute interests, alot of points in these articles are are based on if’s and when’s.
What are you trying to relate to us in paragraphs 7,8,9,10 you seem to be coming to a point which never arrives. Whatever avenue Zuma takes to get out of court has been legal and constituitional as a law proffessor we might question how were these law qualifications obtained in the previous order considering you never have left varsity.
Phosa makes a point in his article that if zille wants to make representation why is it unlawfull for Zuma who is the defendant to make representation but you didnt mention that.
What evidence do you have that the NPA has a winnable case in which Zuma needs to answer in court? You have been calling on Malema’s to not question the decisions of courts & other institutions like the NPA but you have decided to declare that the NPA will make an illegal decision before its even make.
Mbusi, I will try and not respond by making personal atacks. In the section your quoted Phosa clearly states that “section 179(5)(d)(iii) of the constitution gave Zuma a constitutional right to make representations to the NPA”. This is wrong. There is no such right. What part of “right” don’t you understand? There is either a right to make representations (as Nicholson found) or there is not (as the SCA found when it overturned Nicholson judgement). By stating there is such a right Phosa deliberately or negligently misled the public.
On the evidence of a winnable case: (i) the investigators recommended that Zuma be prosecuted because of a winnable case but Ngcuka bizarrely ignored this ; (ii) Vusi Pikoli decided there is a winnable case; (iii) Mokotedi Mpshe has previously decided there is a winnable case; (iv) last month in an affidavit submitted to the Constitutional Court the investigator in the case submitted UNDER OATH to that court that the NPA has a winnable case. Then there is of course the slight inconvenience of the SHaik judgment….
The attack on Zille is a typical political misrepresentation, albeit a somewhat sinister one. In more academic terms, this would be called a “straw man” argument, where one misquotes or misrepresents one’s opponent, and then attacks that misrepresentation. It can be seen as sinister because one’s own listenership then believes something false about one’s opponent (it is my view that this could contravene the Electoral Act).
Zille did not state that it was unlawful for Mr Zuma to make representations – the DA merely requested the same opportunity afforded to Mr Zuma, presumably as an interested party.
What everyone is saying is that for the NPA to drop the charges at this point would be unlawful, given what we know about the situation, and given what we know about the ANC and Zuma representation.
There are only limited circumstances where the NPA, having charged somebody, may then decide not to proceed with those charges. It has been argued by myself and many others that there exist no lawful grounds to do so. We are looking for anyone who can suggest a method for the NPA to drop the charges that would be lawful. This would have to mean, for instance, that they were not acting out of “fear” or “favour”, as has been pointed out quite often.
In fact, it is Mr Zuma wgo is spreading falsehoods. He said, “I am treated as if I had done something illegal … My submissions are legal” Now, the fact of making submissions is legal, and nobody is saying otherwise – despite what he said. However, it may be true that some of the submissions (written or unwritten) may be illegal – like possibly threatening the acting NDPP. It could also be argued that he is asking the NPA to do something that would be unlawful.
Mr Zuma then says, “But what worries me are people who go to court even before there is a decision”. The DA and Helen Zille did not go to court – they went to the NPA. And doing it before there is a decision is precisely the right time (by definition) because that is what submissions are. It may well be that an approach to court IS made afterwards, if there are not proper grounds for whatever decision is made.
Firstly, one of the constitutional rights, deems all South Africans innocent till proven guilty in a court of law. No matter how much we might not like Mr Zuma he remains innocent. A person certainly does not become guilty because of a number of allegations, albeit serious levelled against him.
Furthermore nothing in law exists that obliges Mr Zuma to submit himself to courts of the land, unless of course he receives a court date and is summoned to court. The latest developments certainly are intriguing. Constitutional experts and analysts, some anyway dismissed Judge Nicholsons findings/inference of political meddling by the powers that be in Zuma’s prosecution, it would seem the wise judge was spot on, right on the money.
Though the Supreme Court of Appeal would later put aside his judgement, most of what he said ended up happening, namely NPA acceeding to taking representations from Zuma, something they had fought against, go figure! The public had been calling for Zuma to justify his conpiracy theory with evidence, at times ridiculing even the idea of the existence of a conspiracy against him.
So convoluted was the conspiracy that at first the NPA did not to accept Mr Zuma’s presentaton.
Accompanied by this, some commentators suggested that his lawyers have committed an offence by accepting this evidence that shows political interference in the NPA’s handling of the case. This simply says find Mr Zuma guilty, don’t even allow him to speak. Where is our humanity people? Isn’t this part of a kangaroo type of court treatment?
This desperation to find Mr Zuma guilty at all cost, even at the risk of trampling at his human rights enshrined in the constitution.
I simply cannot wait for 22nd April 2009, so that I can vote Mr Zuma to power, not for anyting else but as a sign of admiration for a man that has emerged as a foce to be reckoned with, despite the hostility from media institutions and opposition parties.
Viva Mr Zuma, Viva!
Viva ANC Viva!
@ Njabulo Mnyandu
A few corrections
1. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean innocent. In fact it means somebody (in this case Zuma) MUST go to court.
2. A court date has already been set for August, and Zuma is avoiding it.
3. Zuma, by not going to court forfeits the presumption of innocence. We thus have a right to pronounce him guilty based on the fact that Shaik was found guilty of bribing Zuma, Zuma accepted those bribes, and bribery is a bilateral offence.
Whether the ANC wins the elections or not, that will not make these facts disappear. Zuma will remain tainted until the court-of-law clears him up.
His conscience will remind him that he is not innocent; that is why he will NEVER utter the words “I did not do it”
Celebrate if you like, but the truth is starring every rational person in the face.
Zuma ain’t innocent. Period.