Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice…. – From Alice in Wonderland.
You’ve got to love this country. Who needs The Bold and the Beautiful or Generations when you have the Zuma-saga to provide drama, mystery and intrigue? Now we are told (but can we believe this?) that Mr Zuma’s lawyers handed evidence – recordings of tapped phone conversations involving former Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy and former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka, among others – to the NPA earlier this year as part of their representations as to why Zuma’s corruption case should be dropped.
According to the Mail & Guardian the recordings “are understood to include” material showing then Scorpions boss, Leonard McCarthy, in a very bad light indeed.
He allegedly makes statements, including “Mbeki is my president, he will always be my president”. After Mbeki’s Polokwane defeat, he allegedly said: “We must wipe the blood off our faces … it is time for a come-back strategy.” Also in the recordings:
- McCarthy allegedly refers to Mbeki’s instructions that neither Zuma nor police commissioner Jackie Selebi should be charged before Polokwane, as the perception of victimhood would work to their advantage;
- There was reference to Zuma allegedly reneging on a 2003 deal to retire from politics in exchange for the dropping of the prosecution against him. A Zuma insider told theM&G that there had been such an approach to Zuma, but that it had gone nowhere because he was affronted; and
- There was reference to Mbeki ordering a third draft of the Scorpions’ “Browse Mole” report, which investigated allegedly illicit foreign funding for Zuma, even though Mbeki’s office publicly condemned the report.
Am I the only one to think that, if this is true, it is very bad news not only for Mbeki and Zuma, but also the NPA? If true, it demonstrates that both camps in the ANC power struggle abused (or are still abusing) state institutions such as the NPA and the police or intelligence services in their fight for power. Good thing the ANC has always maintained that the organisation is unified and that talk of divisions are a “deliberate falsehood” spread by the counter-revolutionary media. Otherwise I might have been worried about the sanity and health of the ANC and the threat the organisation posed to – dare I say – national security.
But let us look at the law. The tapping of phones are regulated by the snappily named Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information (Act 70 of 2002). This Act prohibits the interception of communications without the consent of the parties – unless specific narrowly defined criteria are met.
In certain emergency situations – where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has caused serious bodily harm or is about to do so, for example – law enforcement officials are authorised to tap phones without obtaining permission from a judge but only if it is not reasonably practicable to obtain that permission in time – given the urgency of the matter. Even then those officials have a duty to inform a judge after the fact.
In most cases phones can only be tapped where a judge gives permission and then only where the judge concerned is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a serious offense has been or is being or will probably be committed or where national security is threatened. Even then, unless exceptional circumstances exist, a judge can only give such permission if it was demonstrated that:
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the interception will actually obtain the relevant evidence and other investigative procedures have been applied and have failed to produce the required evidence or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if applied or are likely to be too dangerous to apply in order to obtain the required evidence and that the offence therefore cannot adequately be investigated, or the information therefore cannot adequately be obtained, in another appropriate manner.
If these tapes do exist, the first question will therefore be whether a judge has approved the eavesdropping and on what grounds he or she did so. Unless a judge had reason to believe that McCarthy, Ngcuka and others were threatening the security of the state or that Mbeki was planning a coup, for example, I would be surprised if such permission had been granted. There is therefore the very real possibility that the eavesdropping was in contravention of the Act.
Second, it is a criminal offense to hand over such information – even if legally obtained – to private individuals. Unless I missed it, (and let’s face it, the Act is not a model of clarity and simplicity) the Act does not prohibit a private person from receiving such information and being in possession of such information. This does not mean, however, that Mr Zuma’s lawyer and perhaps Mr Zuma may not have contravened the law because in common law it is an offense to assist another person in committing a crime and those who received the information obviously assisted by making it possible for the illegal handing over of the information. They will therefore also be guilty of a criminal offense.
If the reports are true, Mr Hulley (and maybe Zuma) have exposed themselves to criminal prosecution – which would not be a very wise thing to do unless one was sure that one would never be prosecuted because, well, because one had the police who had to investigate the crime in your pocket.
A third question is whether such illegally obtained information could be used in Mr Zuma’s criminal trial. Section 35(5) of the Constitution states that evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice. I am not a criminal procedure expert, but the jurisprudence seems pretty clear that such evidence will not be admissible in Mr Zuma’s criminal trial.
But would it be permissible in an application by Mr Zuma for the permanent stay of prosecution? I have no idea, but the question is, will such evidence assist Mr Zuma’s application? After all, Judge Harms recently stated in the Nicholson appeal that an ulterior motive alone will not make an otherwise lawful prosecution unlawful. Even if the tapes therefore show that the Scorpions boss was motivated by his loyalty to Thabo Mbeki, this in itself will not save Zuma from prosecution.
It therefore seems perplexing that Mr Zuma’s high powered legal team would have submitted this perhaps illegally obtained evidence to the NPA, thus exposing themselves to criminal prosecution. Moreover, if this is all true, Zuma and his legal team would have made a monumental political blunder.
In as much as Zuma had the moral high ground – at least in the eyes of some of his supporters – because of the perception that state institutions were abused to prosecute him, the use of illegally obtained evidence would completely undercut this position as it would demonstrate that Zuma was also abusing state institutions to try and avoid his day in court. In the process he would have managed to expose the NPA, but would have also destroyed the credibility and legitimacy of the security services, thus endangering our national security.
This means that all those Zuma supporters who enthusiastically cheered the firing of Vusi Pikoli because he allegedly endangered national security would – if they had even a smidgen of integrity – now have to call for the removal of Mr Zuma as President of the ANC and for the prosecution of those who leaked the tapes and those who used it.
As I said, curiouser and curiouser, it gets. Welcome to the mad hatters tea party. “Off with their heads, I say!”
Seems that judge Nicholson was afterall 1000% correct in his finding of political interference – and Mbekigabe’s role in the Zuma prosecution.
Even though he apparently { according to the SCA } didn’t have a shred of admissible evidence of it before him! Excellent judge.
For the rest –well, it all smacks of typical Southern African liberation movement leadership.
Whether or not the prosecution was politically motivated is irrelevant. There is still a legal case to answer, and Zuma must do so, and demonstrate once and for all that he, as a professed innocent man, has faith in our judiciary to find him innocent according to the facts (which his legal team paradoxically seem to keep trying to oppress).
I don’t know quite what to make of these new revelations…my gut tells me that it’s a “hearts and minds” campaign without anything really concrete to back it up, but I suppose time will tell.
At the end of the day though, the inescapable fact remains – with each passing day that Zuma dodges his court appearance, he just looks guiltier and guiltier…and since the ANC is so concerned about our economic standing (refusing the Dalai Lama so as not to piss off our very large trading partner), I would presume that they would be equally concerned about the impact on foreign investor confidence if Zuma gets off scot free without a trial, and encourage him to face the music asap.
Are we in the throes of a coup d’etat?
We have a clique in the ruling party using any and every means to prevent a lawful prosecution, including subverting or attempting to subvert state bodies towards this end, so that the leader of that clique may assume power.
A scenario: the NPA declines to drop the charges because they realise that there is no way that they can legally justify that course of action. More embarrassing details of the Zuma tactics emerge. Hard evidence is obtained that the presidential candidate lied to the nation, to his party and to his supporters. These details get clearly publicised, even amongst the urban and rural poor who support him.
More criminal charges are in the offing. many, many people decide that they are not going to vote – they can’t vote for the ANC, but neither can they support anyone else. The opposition parties are all highly motivated, and their those voters not supporting the ANC are ready to turn out in force.
What does the ANC do, as the calamitous election draws near? Could riots and instability be provoked? How much sway could ANC-sympathising officials in the IEC exert over the process? For all of their professionalism, the IEC can still be a little opaque (in 1999, errors in provisional results saw a 24-hour period in which no new results were released).
I don’t believe that these doomsday scenes are very likely to play out, but I would like to ask how outrageous the scenario is, and why.
Two questions:
- will the ANC relinquish control of any Legislature of Parliament where it does not gain a majority of the votes?
- if the NPA proceeds with the charges against Mr Zuma, what will the tactics of his supporters be – will they let this happen?
I don’t see how Zuma can wriggle his way out of it unless the ANC take the Chirac option, but that’ll only work if they obtain two/thirds; also unlikely. Even if government appoint another to lead the NPA, the appointee will still be tied to continuing the process. Your thoughts Prof?
I definately call for a political solution to President Zuma s case now. This is getting uglier by the day, we need to break even out of this mess. Only the dropping of the charges will assist us before something horrific happens.
Spuy, I maintain that the only way this ugly mess can be solved is for a full and comprehensive inquiry into arms deal. Once we know who did what, we can talk about some political “solution”, but then everyone must first come clean. Otherwise some would be more equal than others, a.k.a. Animal Farm. Sweeping things under the carpet will be bad for South Africa and bad for the ANC.
I am shocked!! Zuma abusing state institutions for personal and political gain is unthinkable!
Let’s be honest, the ANC are not above using whatever means necessary, both legal and illegal, to further the aims f their party and the individual members. We saw it with Ebrahim Rasool at Provincial level when he used every possible play in the book (as well as well outside the book) to oust Helen Zille and her coalition government. We know that Mbeki did it to protect Selebi and get rid of Zuma. And we know that Zuma does it constantly, from using taxpayers’ money to cover his security detail to arranging medical parole for his pal, Shaik.
My quesiton is, when will it stop? Why does the ANC continue unhindered in their rape and abuse of this country? Why do the rest of the hardworking people of this country continue to work everyday to build a better country while our leaders seek to destroy it?
The reported contents of the tapes are not substantial in respect of the prosecution of Mr Zuma.
All that they might show is that Mr Mbkei and possibly Mr NGcuka wrongfully involved themselves in the details of the prosecution of Mr Zuma (pretty serious in itself, agreed). It is also possibloy that a senior NPA figure (McCarthy) was driven in part by political motives.
However, if politicians tell the NPA (when they do not have a right to talk to them like this) to do something that the NPA OUGHT TO HAVE DONE ANYWAY, then the doing of that thing (prosecuting Mr Zuma) is not wrong!
Nobody has suggested that evidence has been tampered with or manufactured – that would be the only possible basis for dropping some of the charges.
In fact, what we have here is the perfect recipe for any future prosecution of a political figure to be dropped – when an investigation is underway, simply get political leaders to discuss the prosecutions with prosecutors – and then the accused can cruy foulf and get let off.
Pierre your logical back flips and clumsy efforts at saving face is also getting curiouser and curiouser.
You called us all “conspiracy theorists” for pointing out the obvious political vendetta against Zuma/Mac Maharaj during all these years under Mbeki. You ferociously defended the NPA and your beloved Apartheid era Scorpions trained by the FBI and tasked with propping up the “business friendly” Mbeki in order to undermine and discredit “populist” political enemies. You, as a “constitutional expert” is part of the problem Pierre De Vos.
The NIA is the only state organ that has the mandate to gather intelligence and if they were doing so to expose the political abuse of another state organ i.e. the NPA then they did their job and well done. At the time that the recordings were made Zuma was in no position to abuse state organs since he was not even part of the government or the cabinet. The existence of the NIA intelligence reports that are surfacing now has been around for years – even Business Day was barred form making a leaked report substantiating the accusations of an agenda against Zuma and his “left-leaning” allies public and Kasrils at the time claimed “security of the state” and barred the media from reporting on it. Yet – you ridiculed and mocked the YCL for their paranoia, their “conspiracy theories” and their “anti-revolutionary” rhetoric.
Where to now PdV ? Shame on you – sies boet.
Ozoneblue
Have we any proof that if these tapes exist, they are authentic?
Why does Mpshe say he is unaware of their existence?
I am not defending anybody here, just asking questions.
There are no tapes.
‘There are no tapes.’
Who has stolen them?
Just think about it!
Which lawyer in his right mind would call prosecutors to show that he is in possession of criminally obtained material. And which prosecutor in his right mind would not arrest that lawyer on the spot?
It just fucks up with ones imagination!!!
Ozone, I understand your anger, trust me, I almost feel the same way. But as democrats and true patriots let us still respect other people s rights ( to hold a different opinion, to speak their minds freely, to review their earlier positions freely etc) as contained in the constitution. Pierre has always done used his constitutional right to speak his mind robustly on issues of the day – we cant take that away from him, regardless of how provocative, biased or insulting we may view his writings to be. It is from this background my comrade that I feel you might want to retract you post above, I m still mindful of the fact that you equally have a right to express how you feel. But we cant afford to be seen as people getting easily offended by opposing views my leader!
Anyway, I want to come back to the issue of “Zuma avoiding/dogging his day in court” as commoly said but people who obviosly have some pages missing on their Constitution booklets. 1. Every citizen has a right to justice, i.e usage of courts to fight your battles, so far Mr Zuma has only done that, that only, so let us at least appreciate that fact. 2. In other countries this would have long been solved politically (for whatever good/bad reasons) but we are not like other countries, are we? We are a constitutional and democratic country. We have been able to engage with this highly sensitive and high profile case as adequately and freely as possible, from right when it started till now. We need to be proud of ourselves and our democratic country, trust me, some will attest to the fact that in some countries you can only express your view, especially political, in your silent dreams if you want to live longer. But here, our country, our government, led by the ANC which is led by Mr Jacob Zuma, is truely truely truely democratic – ask Zimbabwens and other different foreign nationals if you dont believe me!
khosi, I agree. There are no tapes. millitant julia ‘majunju’ malema would have made lot of noise about them. But what does exist is a stubborn determination on part of Mr Zuma’ supporters to excert more and more preasure on the NPA to drop his charges.
At one point beliece you me this ‘perception of victimhood’ is going to render this country ungovernable. Welcome to banana republic. Where there is no rule of law but mob rule.
khutso, what makes a “banana republic” ? Do you even know what is a banana republic and the history of how the term originated? I doubt you do, cos if you did, you would know S.A cant be that.
spuy. this should not be difficult 4 u i think a simple google search and a short trip to your nearest library would be helpful.
Nonetheless the point i wanted to submit was that the droping of charges of Mr Zuma would actualy raises more questions than answers inasfar as the rule of law is concerned.
if ever there is anything that is in the ‘public’s interest’ is this case. we want transparency, we want answers. Our parents’ hard earned cash has been wasted in this case. so why stop now, spuy? Our we ever going to know whether Mr Zuma is corrupt or not. But if we don’t knw we are not only going to doubt his integrity but also that of the government he is likely to lead.
The complications and illegalities involved in this case should serve as no excuse not to prosecute. How on earth will we rout this stuff out unless we face it head on?
If state institutions and security services are being politically abused then that MUST be exposed or their credibility will be compromised anyway. The ANC and Zuma and all other leaders or institutions MUST face the music, whether there is possibility of unstability or not. It is imperative to the future of South Africa. There will certainly be unstability in the long term if this is ignored for these sorts of reasons!
Vote for an alternative to all of this, Vote DA!!!
The NPA is going to drop charges against Zuma, same as Ngcode paroled Shaik. There’ll be much outrage from some quarters, understandably so. And there will be jubilation from other quarters. But the reality will be
• Zuma will be a free man
• Suspicions will linger but won’t matter because voters will still elect Zuma.
• The arms deal issue will still be evaded
• Our justice system will have been compromised
• The stench will be overbearing, and the consequences, although not apparent, will be ghastly.
Yes, we are in Africa (whatever that means) and Mpshe and company will be rewarded.
Ozonblue, you are, as always, wrong. What I have consistently pointed out is the absurdity of alleging a conspiracy as a way of trying to prove that Zuma is not guilty as sin. There can, of course, be a conspiracy and an abuse of state institutions (BY BOTH SIDES!) AND ZUMA (and maybe Mbeki) can be guilty of serious criminal conduct. The one does not exclude the others. Zuma supporters have consistently tried to argue that it does. This is factually and logically wrong. Zuma has a case to answer. On a preponderance of probabilities he is a crook and a fraud. If he gets to court we can see whether he is also a crook and a fraud beyond reasonable doubt. But we may now never do. Which would leave us on a preponderance of probabilities with a crook as a President and leaves you as an apologist of a person that, on a preponderance of probabilities is a crook and a fraud. I know which side of this ethical divide I would rather be on and it aint your side, sweetness.
Oh, and by the way, ozoneblue, you are the one with a spectacular and hypocritical double standard. You natter on about “innocent until proven guilty” when it comes to Zuma. But as far as I am aware no person has been found beyond reasonable doubt to have conspired against JZ. What happened to innocent until proven guilty when it comes to Mbeki and the NPA? If you were consistent and principled you would not have assumed Mbeki and the NPA guilty without a criminal court making a finding on the matter. But who needs principles if the Messiah is to be defended?
“khosi // Mar 28, 2009 at 4:14 pm
There are no tapes.”
“I am not a crook”.
– Richard (Tricky Dicky) Nixon –
Well well well, it seems that JZ is now my president – respect for wriggling off a pretty big hook.
Now prove to us that it has all been worthwhile and get this country off its lazy corrupt ass and working towards a better life for all.
Pierre De Vos @ 9:42 pm
But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence Pierre. Starting with the Mbeki’s attempts way back in 2002 to incriminate and thus discredit political opponents like Ramapahosa, Sexwale, and Phosa, the highly selective cherry-picking of information in the de Lille dossier and the top secret KPMG report used to prosecute Shaik and implicate Zuma, bizarre public statments made by Ngcuka himself, the Hefer commission’s finding that Ngcuka (and then Pikoli) did little or nothing to get to the source of the constant media leaks flowing from within his office, the unchallenged allegations by journalist Vusi Mona, McCarthy’s role in compiling the Browse-Mole report, the hoax email saga where Billy Masethla today stands vindicated. I almost forgot to mention the Nicholson judgment but we don’t want the judiciary peddling “conspiracy theories” now – do we?
I would love to add Brett Kebble’s dodgy “assisted suicide” and the eagerness of the NPA and Pikoli to accept a mafia boss’s affidavit as “evidence”, the mysterious “accident” of Paul Madaka but hell no I don’t want to be branded a conspiracy theorist again.
Pierre – why is it that as a “constitutional expert” you take so little interest in the dire implication of the abuse of state power for political gain and seem to be almost entirely honed on if not obsessed with the continued prosecution of Zuma ?
What is actually being proposed here?
That, in response to alleged political interference in the NPA, we should forget all about that very political interference, and then add a whole lot more political interference and then, by the way, drop charges against Mr Zuma.
I don’t see the connection. Logically, that is. But we are not dealing with logic, are we?
Mr Zuma has said for a long time that he is aware of a (criminal) political plot against him, but he chooses when and how he reveals information that he has about crimes, and only does so in order to benefit himself.
In other words, Mr Zuma is above the law.
Nobody has alleged that any evidence has been manufactured. Therefore, Mr Zuma is complaining about politicians telling the NPA to what what they had a legal duty to do all along. The fact of that political interference may be wrong, but the remedy is not for the NPA to step back from doing what it is bound in law to do.
\In the current circumstances, ANY DECISION to withdraw charges against Mr Zuma is almost certainly unlawful.
I have been vocal calling for JZ to be prosecuted in order that we can have finality on this issue.
However…
If this tapes issue runs its course and they exist and contain the evidence suggested, I think the charges should be dropped.
Oh, that hurt my heart to type that.
Pierre Ive asked this before….
Now that Zuma a private citizen and clearly using political interference to get his hands on state evidence from the National intelligent agency clearly an abuse of power both from Zuma and the recordings of Mbeki if the recordings are true….can Zuma be now charged with extortion?
How far fetched is it for a conspiracy from Zuma side ? J Nicholson might of gotten it right but pointed the finger at the wrong guy Mbeki….its Zuma
Case in point:
Mo shaik and his Zuma buddies accusing the then NPA head Ngcuka as an Apartheid spy which is rather no surprise as Zuma was charged in 2001 and 2003 Zuma camp launched a systimatic attack on the NPA which prompted the Hefer investigation which again found an NPA head to be with out fear and favor and not an apartheid spy but the damage was done and he resigned thanks to the Zuma camp.
So what have we, the Zuma camp has managed to force the resignation of the one NPA head and manged to fire another NPA head.
Conspiracy absolutly hell yeh he has even managed to topple a president why stop at the NPA lets get a whip N Tickle from toppling Mbeki
Now having so called tapes that proves Mbeki is the conspiracist clearly shows a National Breach of Security this should actually be held as treason.
Case in point. Hope you paying attention Ozoneblue
The Browse Mole report. (treason)
It is no secret anymore where the ANC is getting its funding from lol clear and presently from the DL stunt
and this lovely artical from Mail & guardian
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-03-21-ancs-dodgy-funders
which clearly proves to back up the Browse report.
So clearly the question would need to be asked when Zuma was deputy president did he have the phones tapped then? which could have easily have been done since Mbeki was overseas alot.
But no matter what Zuma throughs at the NPA again there is that delicious piece of evidence that is soooooooo fat so0000 tender soooo tasty that makes a texas Steak look like a piece of Bacon is the “Mauritius Documents” mmmm yummy can you feel that Ozoneblue
and funny reading the judgement from that court how the Judge was not the slightest bit interested in Zuma’s BS story on Conspiracy.
But the Joke of the Day is Zuma back at it again saying his rights are been disregarded lol ha ha come on really? what about Mbeki’s rights of privacy and your so could “TAPES”
Mpho
Those tapes are illegal he is trying to blackmail the NPA the NPA has Mauritius Documents baby
The problem is that, without knowing for sure what is contained in the Zuma representations, we are all speculating. I would imagine that, included in the representations, would be Zuma’s defence to the allegations against him. Not much is said about the possibility of Zuma’s defence being impregnable!
In any event, if the rumours are anything to go by, Zuma’s prospects of success in the “permanent stay” application look good. Mpshe might decide that if he can’t win the “permanent stay” application he might as well withdraw the charges now and save a little bit of tax payers’ money that has already been wasted.
Having said that, I still hope and wish that one way or the other we will get to know what is contained in the representations.
Would the contents of the “tapes” be admissable in an application for a permanent stay? And given the SCA judgment, would they be a barrier to continued prosecution? The problem, of course is that the application for a permanent stay is out of the direct control of the ANC – whereas the NPA might show itself to be compliant to the ANC’s wishes.
I think that we all agree, Ozone, that the misue and abuse of state organs for personal political gain as it appears Mr Mbeki has done is WRONG. The reason it is so wrong is because it leads to people like you and the other hordes of JZ appologists to bleat on as if it exonerates your great leader. Mbeki deserves to be investigated and his day in court if necessary. JZ likewise. In a robust democracy with independent institutions this would happen. Both Mbeki and JZ have shown themselves to be corruptible and probably corrupt individulas with a very limited and self serving notion of morality. I’d like to see the whole ANC top brass and foreign arms companies involved in the arms deal investigated and prosecuted or given a TRC esque opportunity to come clean. We can start with Zuma.
A decision not to prosecute would be reviewable in law. At least that is what leading decisions in the world say. I hope Prof will be able to give us some juice on this position.
Mpho, i am really suprised that you are now calling for the droping of charges against Mr Zuma simply on the bases of the called ‘tapes’ that do not in actual fact exist. Mind you Mr Mpse had denied the existence such. Or do you maybe know something that we dont know?
Come on Mpho dont fall for this trap.
Many people have long argued that Mr Zuma is running out of options. I am now convinced
Mpho,
I agree with you. I am also ready to move on and ready to accept the dropping of the charges against Zuma. This thing is just getting messier and if the reports about the tapes are to be believed the NPA is also tainted and should not go to court with tainted hands.
Having said that the reports do not suggest anyhting about Zuma’s actual defence on the merits. So his supporters, at this stage, cannot rely on these reports to claim vindication of their belief that JZ was innocent all along.
Prof,
on a completely different issue, I read a rather interesting article this morning:
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=123356&sn=Marketingweb+detail
Any chance you’d be able to give us your views?
shakira // Mar 30, 2009 at 11:20 am
“Having said that the reports do not suggest anyhting about Zuma’s actual defence on the merits.”
I know
So we have a tainted President and we all lose. But we have no other option. I won’t accept that the NPA proceeds with a tainted case. We have terrible leaders in this country.
Shakira,
The “messiness” of an issue cannot be grounds for just putting it aside – that would allow anyone who is under scrutiny to “escape” by causing messiness.
Note that it has been reported that Judge Hlophe is trying to get a nterdict against the JSC process because they are “biased” against him.
It is a common tactic for a person with their back to the wall to muddy the waters (usually with logically or legally irrelevant issues) and then hope to escape in the general confusion.
The ONLY valid response to “messiness” is to focus very sharply and clearly on the legal merits of the situation, and stick to those. That way clarity is obtained.
Heres a question Mpho
would you sleep better at night with a tainted president or a tainted National prosecution authority??
A fly that flew inside the NPA’s boardroom has whispered to me that not all the charges will not be dropped.
Also, what about the charges against Thint? Can they be dropped? And if they are not, would they not have a complaint against the NPA for dropping the Zuma charges, but not theirs?
If they can be dropped, can anyone advance a single reason for this to be lawful? After all, they are accused of attempting to corrupt our (then) Deputy President.
mike i think the Thint chargers were dropped because of former Justice minister Penuell Maduna who now works for Thint
Seems to me most ANC leaders are way way over their head, incapable of the enormous responsibilities and tasks present or future, like fish floundering about on the deck after being landed. So much valuable time is being wasted. If you’re working in the townships you literally want to cry yourself to sleep at night with the seriousness of the challenges, with the total disregard by government for the people (apart from election time), continuously the non-existent service and support, and as for opportunities, forget it. And why, because the followers with ‘no bathrooms’, who are also over their heads in dealing with today’s challenges, but understandably so, repeatedly vote in to power their own continued misery. Sad, so sad.
George Gildenhuys at 11:23 am
O dear those evil communists are near. I can smell the fear, now that all attempts by our “business-friendly” ex-Apartheid bandwagon to undermine the “populists” through the wanton abuse of democracy, our courts, organs of state, the press and our constitution has failed.
Hey Ozone, if I was an outsider who is interested in visiting SA or immegrate here and I wanted to do a bit of homework to see how similar my thoughts are with that of the standard equally educated South African and I want to see the progress that they’ve made since adopting the 1996 Constitution and you where the representative of the South Africans or even of the governing political party then old monkey nuts, I would reconsider coming here.
Ozone, perhaps you could do the following for us:
1. Identify the individuals or groups comrising the “business friendly ex-apartheid badnwagon”
2. Provide examples of how these people/groups/entities have wantonly abused democracy, courts, organs of state, the press and Constitution.
Since a good critique requires a balanced view of all sides, I will be happy to provide many examples of the above regarding JZ, Shaik, Mbeki, Tshabalala-Msimang et al, so we can compare and evaluate.
People have stopped listening to the ANC, because they keep on spouting forth these general vague statements, kinda like the one you just made. Be specific, so we can debate.
And those communists are near – in fact, they’re in parliment, and your beloved JZ answers to them too.
“But we have no other option.”
But we do, Mpho … if only 51% of all voters would make their cross for some or other opposition party … well, I can dream, can’t I?
If the charges against Zuma are indeed dropped, how many votes might this cost the ANC, if any?
The Big Slipper
The ANC doesnt call the shots anymore infact the ANC is dead and invaded and controlled by the Cosatu and SACP. Troy has been destroyed and conquered by its very own trojan horse. Infact the Black roman empire has been invaded by the black vangoths
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=970450
Another point to speculate on is that if the recordings were Ok’ed by a judge on the grounds of a threat to National Security, then what was the threat and will the ANC accept that the threat was from within a unified ANC. Or will they now claim that it was from a breakaway faction that does not exist when other arguments are being made.