Did President Jacob Zuma lie about his marital status in an official government document, or did he lie to the nation about the number of wives he is married to? And what is the legal status of President Zuma’s various formal and less formal liaisons with women who happens to be his sexual partners?
The Times reports this morning that a document purporting to be a copy of the application for a birth certificate for the latest Zuma baby has the answer “yes” in reply to the question: “Are the parents of the child married to each other.” The document is date stamped January 19 – two weeks after Zuma married Tobeka Madiba, who he then claimed to be his fifth wife.
At first blush it would appear that if The Times story is correct, Zuma either lied when he completed and signed the application for the birth certificate or that he lied when he stated that Tobeka Madiba was his third consecutive wife. It might of course be that some dark forces out to destroy Zuma fabricated the application for the birth certificate and forged Zuma’s signature on it. Stranger things have happened in this country. But this would only be the case if those forces are rather close to Zuma because the application contains the personal phone numbers of both Zuma and the mother of his child as this information was provided on the application.
However, there is also another manner in which to explain away the apparent lie. It might also be that Zuma had married the mother of his most recent child (as far as we know) in a private ceremony in terms of traditional Zulu custom but had not registered the marriage as required by the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.
Mr Zuma would then be married in terms of Zulu custom, but not in terms of the law as set out by the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act. This would mean that he would be able to claim that, strictly speaking, he did not lie because he was legally married to only three women but married in terms of Zulu custom to four women. This would allow Zuma to claim that both the statements during his most recent wedding and the statements on the birth certificate application were true.
This last defence would be a good one as far as semantic gymnastics are concerned, but it would place a serious question mark over Mr Zuma’s assurances at Davos last week that he believed in the equality of women. It would also place a serious question mark over his respect for the law. This is because a spouse who enters into a customary marriage has a legal duty in terms of the Act to register that marriage within a period of three months.
More pertinently, where the husband is already married to one or more other wives, the Act places a duty on him to make an application to the court to approve a written contract which will regulate the future matrimonial property system of his marriages. The existing wives and prospective wife must be joined in such an application and they can make any input to the court. The court can then amend the contract in such a way that it would ensure an equitable distribution of the property between the spouses.
If the President (or anyone else, for that matter) entered into a customary marriage it would be extremely important for them to register the customary union and to make the necessary application to court to ensure that a contract providing for an equitable distribution of property is approved by the court. Failure to fulfil these legal obligations would fundamentally undermine the legal position of one or more of the wives and would display an utter lack of respect for women’s equality and would potentially subject one or more of the wives to humiliation and deprive them of their dignity.
As the Constitutional Court stated recently in the Gumede judgement, before the advent of the new Act there was “a stubborn persistence of patriarchy and conversely, [this resulted in] the vulnerability of many women during and upon termination of a customary marriage”. The Act represents:
a belated but welcome and ambitious legislative effort to remedy the historical humiliation and exclusion meted out to spouses in marriages which were entered into in accordance with the law and culture of the indigenous African people of this country… The legislation … seeks to jettison gendered inequality within marriage and the marital power of the husband by providing for the equal status and capacity of spouses….
The legislation not only confers formal recognition on the marriages but also entrenches the equal status and capacity of spouses and sets itself the task of regulating the proprietary consequences of these marriages. In doing so, the Recognition Act abolishes the marital power of the husband over the wife and pronounces them to have equal dignity and capacity in the marriage enterprise.
In order to establish whether President Zuma is a sexist patriarch or whether he really respects gender equality, it would be helpful if he told the nation whether he had indeed registered all his customary marriages as required by the Act and whether he has made an application to court to ensure an equitable distribution of property between the spouses. Obviously if he has not adhered to the law he would not only be showing a complete contempt for the law but also an inherent contempt for women.
On the other hand, if the President provided evidence of the fact that he had registered all his customary marriages and that he had been granted an order by the court confirming a fair arrangement regarding the distribution of property between the spouses, he would probably gain some new respect and his assurances at Davos about his support for gender equality might carry a little more weight.
As matters stand now, responsible citizens have far too little information to make informed decisions about the conduct of the President and what it says about his character (or lack of character). This is not our fault, but rather the fault of the President and his advisors who insist that this is a private matter.
Although the Presidency is now trying to avoid accountability by changing the subject to one of his alleged right to privacy, this is not a private matter – no matter what the Presidency and the ANC claims. If the President does not provide us with the necessary information people will jump to conclusions – whether those conclusions are correct or not – and the image and standing of our President will suffer as a result.
The right to privacy should be respected. Not some of the time, but all the time.
The call to release private records shows a certain inability to vent the anger society feels about this shame. Everybody is left in the mercy of the ANC leadership. Its their call.
Noticeably, nobody in the higher echelons has come in the defence of this sordid affair. How can they?
Its time for our Parliamentarians to stand up and be counted (literally).
As for the purported document, I don’t know. Its becoming murky.. Dark
Considering the state of the nation will be held at night, hopefully we will see the President at his best, Invigorated.
Pierre get off the fucking president’s private life. Your attempt to avoiding apoligizing for being gullible and castigating the president for marital affair out of wedlock is not working.
I’ve had it with racist whites on this blog. And Pierre, you are one of them.
You are no different to Helen Zille with her campaign to stop Zuma. It’s time you write about racism in the western cape judiciary Judge Hlophe highlighted a while ago.
Musa, it is common for a person who is shamed and embarrassed by the actions of someone he holds dear to lash out at anyone who happens to mention the cause of the embarrassment or shame. I find it is better to deal with such feelings by working through the arguments – not by hiding behind untenable and legally incorrect claims of privacy. So can I ask: would you be the first person on this blog (or it seems in South Africa) to construct a credible argument in defense of what the President did? I would love to hear such and argument which might be strengthened by addressing the question of whether a President should act privately more or less in line with his public utterances and the policies of his party or whether a President can say one thing in public and do exactly the opposite in private – even if that directly contradicts the policies of the patty he leads.
What will it take for the ANC support base among the electorate to realise that Zuma, with all respect, is just unsuited to high political office? I mean, this is a man whose body of talents seems to add no political value to our constitutional democracy. We need only look at his typical doings for confirmation as to this point: shagging, speech reading, appointments of cronies and lackeys, and apparently eating. If that is what it takes to get the top job in this country, Julius may well get his shot some day.
Perhaps the term ‘accountability’ has been bandied about so much that we have neglected to consider whether people are clear about why it is important to encourage it. It is a principle of governance which is at once trite and necessary and in exceptionally broad strokes, it involves political figures answering for their screw-ups and suffering adverse consequences where such consequences are merited. It is also an inconvenient principle. And that is precisely why we generally cannot rely on political figures to embrace it. Thus I think inquiries ought to turn to how Zuma could be held accountable here. That is, one question becomes: if the president ducks out of tendering a full and forthcoming exposition of his conduct, how can the electorate see to it that the president suffers some sort of lawful adverse consequence so that he and other political figures could be encouraged to feel a greater sense of responsibility to the citizenry?
Pierre, it is also annoying to always get critism from you about the ANC and president Zuma all the time. You don’t show the same vigour about DA leadership.
It’s this hate i see everyday on this blog and media websites that make me believe lately that nothing will ever change regarding white peoples perception of black people.
Black people will never do anything right in your eyes except if it further drives a wedge amongst black, thus taking back control to white people.
Again I say you were gullible and you are trying to save you face. You, many whites and the media will never rests. Your hurt for the ANC is appaulling. Will you write about DA saying minister Cwele should step down turning a blind eye on his wifes activities. This morning it’s been confirmed that they having been leaving apart for almost five years.
Pierre and many whites are taking us back. You are holding us in ransom using the constituition when it suites as does organisation like Afriforum and Solidarity. I now put in the same level as these. Someday the black population of this country will see through all these actions which are taking us back to apartheid.
Well, Pierre I feel for you to have to contend with moronic individuals who have no respect whatsoever. The most embarrasing thing for most of us is to have some amongst us try so hard to defend the indefensible. Lying and cheating can never be mistaken for truth and honesty. Musa, with such a beautiful name you have let us down and almost disgraced your name, as we all concur uMusa we nkosi (grace of the lord) we hope you shall your mend your ways and not fall into the trap of “personality cult”. Make your point and if you cannot let others who are sober minded make it for you!
If you ask me, Zuma lied on that official document. This is just my opinion based on
• Zuma’s own propensity to be economical with the truth.
• Sonono’s arrogant response (and denial) to the media and a threat to seek legal recourse.
• Irvin Khoza’s alleged disappointment (and surprise) at the news.
• No plausible reason why the marriage would have been kept secret given that Sonono was with child and an announcement of marriage is more palatable than the rumour of an out-of-wedlock and unprotected-sex resulting in the birth of an illegitimate child.
Please Musa don’t drag the whole Black race into this mess. We are not all Zuma, you know.
Zuma represents the exact opposite of the values a majority of Black people hold dear. Stop your racist rants and face up to the truth that Zuma was a wrong choice for President.
I wish you could respond to Leigh’s question: “What value does Zuma add to our constitutional democracy?”
Mack the Knife!, I maybe a moron, but i hate racists. President Zuma faulters like many. I’ve pointed to Pierre the uneven hand he plays when it comes to Zuma and the ANC. People don’t take kindly when their racist attitudes are articulated. Many of us have racist tendences of which we try and correct everyday, but others are pushing the envelope too far.
I keep saying don’t push people to far.
Musa, with all respect, your post at 13:32pm seems to show off a fairly pressing problem in the education system: people have negligible skill at investigation – which, as a bit of an aside, renders disciplines which incorporate any kind of mental rigour inaccessible. This is, in addition to being a pressing problem, a pretty annoying one too as often enough it is not the case that the hapless learner is unintelligent. Often it boils down to the sad reality that the learner just was not afforded the chance to catch the relevant skills.
Speaking broadly, one facet of investigation is to take texts apart with relevant questions. You appear to do absolutely nothing of the sort here. For a start, you have apparently failed to understand why Zuma’s behaviour could be exceedingly objectionable – and a number of reasons are mentioned in the present piece. Moreover, you apparently do not understand why the Presidency’s response offers cause for concern. As to the second of your unfortunate analytical displays, it may serve some kind of useful purpose to offer a position here: the Presidency’s response offers cause for concern as it either (a) shows a regrettably wrongheaded conception of the limitations that public life imposes on the right privacy or (b), that this is just another instance of typical ANC deflection.
Dumisani, perhaps i should qualify and say many blacks.
Zuma is no saint and neither has any political leader. How ever i see more progress in this ANC leadership than in past.
Zuma’s private life does not bring jobs, health care, education, security, etc to me and my family. The question to me is whether or not he and his cabinet are bettering the lives of South African. His child is his private life.
Leigh,the president should respond personally when he returns from his obligation outside the country. He might decide not to, if it infringes on Sonono’s rights.
To you learned people, is it correct for the Sunday Times to quote the baby’s name?
@Musa, No no no. Please do not dilute our ability to defend racism, that exists, by using the accusation of racism in a matter that is simple and clear. I am black and I also share the same misgivings, on the whole matter, that Pierre and Dumisani hold.
Were we lied to? Or did the president misrepresent facts on a his child birth certificate?
@Pierre,
Please point us to a Zulu custom that makes it possible for people to get married 1.) without the consent of the bride father 2.) In total secret.
Musa, your rant does not address any of the issues and are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether I am from Mars, a friend of Eugene de Kock, a CIA agent, a womanizer or Intersexed does not in any way detract from the questions I pose here regarding the actions of our President. In any case, you are of course wrong about my animus and hatred and bias as well (surprise). See for example http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/zille-zillier-zilliest/ and http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/cape-town-a-racist-city/ and http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/mayor-pinocchio/ doe criticism of Zille and Cape Town. See also for discussion about racism and the need for transformation:http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/on-judicial-transformation-racism-bigotry-and-power/ and http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/why-are-equality-courts-closing-down/ and http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/on-transformation-and-legal-education/
I repeat, why don’t you talk about the issue? Launching ad hominem attacks (and calling someone a racist) is intellectually dishonest (and deeply disrespectful to the many people who experience real racism every day in our country) and usually suggests that the person who disagrees with you cannot construct a plausible argument to defend his or her position. Such a person (which I suggest you are in this context) must defend the indefensible not by defending it but by personally attacking those who raise the issue that cannot be defended. This might make you feel better, but it does not make the embarrassing facts disappear.
OH MY GOD! This episode of Days of my Wives so caught me off guard – didyouhear! “Gasp” natta natta yadda yadda at the water cooler…
“So can you imagine how pissed off numba 4 must have been”
“Yo – You know Erin Woods – that woman she knows how to handle her man”
“Eeeish numba 5 – she didn’t even get a party”
“Which numba 5?”
“Yo”
Musi – I dare you to stop that little play from happening somewhere at an office, on a construction site, in a hospital or squatta camp – go on save you moral hero from afar (just hide your daughter)…
I laugh, snigger and gossip with the rest – godamn girlfriend this is a good soap-opera, and so flow our taxes through the rands of time – in these “Days of our Wives”
African customary marriage is a ‘process’ that can take up to 20 years to complete unlike an ‘event’ that marks a monogamous Christian marriage.
When does the Customary Marriage Act say a marriage must be registered?
Musa @ February 3, 2010 at 13:32 pm
somebody didn’t take their happy pills this morning!
Zuma in his own words or Adviser’s words……. http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/local/article291006.ece
FULL STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT ZUMA ON HIS “LOVE CHILD”
I have noted recent media reports about aspects of my personal life. I have noted too that these reports have been the subject of much discussion in the public arena by various organisations and people from all walks of life.
I have therefore decided, after some careful deliberation, to make public comment on a matter that is otherwise intensely personal. I had been out of the country when this matter arose.
I confirm that I have a relationship and a baby with Ms Sonono Khoza. I said during World Aids Day that we must all take personal responsibility for our actions. I have done so. I have done the necessary cultural imperatives in a situation of this nature, for example the formal acknowledgement of paternity and responsibility, including the payment of inhlawulo to the family. The matter is now between the two of us, and culturally, between the Zuma and Khoza families.
It is unfortunate that the individuals concerned have been unfairly subjected to harsh media exposure merely because of the position that I occupy. Our Constitution and our laws require us to protect children from harmful public exposure. The Constitution states that it is inappropriate to place at risk, the child’s well-being, physical or mental health, spiritual, moral or social development.
Both the Child Care Act and the new Children’s Act also provides for the protection of children from exploitation. The naming of the child’s parents has essentially exposed her to the public, which has serious implications in the long-term for her, and amounts to the exploitation referred to in the Act, because the media is making money out of the matter.
The media is also in essence questioning the right of the child to exist and fundamentally, her right to life. It is unfortunate that the matter has been handled in this way. I sincerely hope that the media will protect the rights of children.
Much has been made of the government’s policy on HIV and AIDS and this relationship. It is mischievous to argue that I have changed or undermined government’s stance on the HIV and AIDS campaign. I will not compromise on the campaign. Rather we will intensify our efforts to promote prevention, treatment, research and the fight against the stigma, attached to the epidemic. We will also continue with our campaign to ensure that every South African knows their HIV status, and that all those who need it have access to appropriate treatment.
We respect and uphold the freedom of the media. It is one of the freedoms we fought for, and which we will always defend. However, the President of the Republic, the mother and the baby are also entitled to the rights afforded to all South Africans in the Constitution. These rights cannot be waived just because of a position one occupies.
I would request that the dignity and privacy of the affected individuals in this matter be respected.
How old are you Musa????? the issue of racism is offline in this case, we can’t defend the indefensible.
The ANC people is going to the dogs and that to me is a worry. There is no other organisation in SA that can do what ANC has done, and frankly we are slowly playing into the hands of the whites. This is what they wanted in the first place. mandela was our first president after the new dispensation, he came and he is gone. But what we remember him for are reconciliatory policies that helped steer SA pecafully to where we are today. Mbeki came and started pushing for economic growth, his policies over reconnaissance and taking pride in africanism are well documented. I dont want to dwell on his undoings and errors, but in hindsight, he was trying to avoid what we are seeing now. these guys know each other very well and maybe, just maybe, he knew of the unsatiable lust of this man and what it will do to ANC and SA govt. But what did we do, we voted for him irrespective. What are we going to remebre Zuma for people when he is gone? So far the man has a year in office, what tangible things can ewe point out except that we have a govt full of dodgy characters in positions of power. we have the Celes, the Malemas, the Cwele’s, the Shaiks and stuff like that in power. What does the future hod for us?
The President is correct about the rights of the child as the best interest of the child far outweighs the public;’s right to know. The name of the child should not have been published. By issuing this statement the President is admitting, however, that his private conduct can be a matter of public interest – if it was truly a private matter, he would not have commented at all. What is not addressed in the statement is the huge gap between the President public statements and the policy positions of his government and his private actions and what that may say about his integrity and trustworthiness. A debate about this latter issue is clearly legitimate, timely and in the public interest. There will be different views on this issue, depending on one’s own morality, and one’s own view of what standard of conduct and honesty one can expect of a President. Furthermore, what is not addressed is whether the President lied and whether he claimed on the official application for registration of the child that he was married to the mother and if so, whether this is true or false. Whether a President lies on official forms is also clearly a matter of public interest and needs more investigation and debate. As yet, we do not have enough information to make a definitive judgment about what this matter says about the character of the President.
Whats next with our People Charmer-old-man, i think the time is coming where even Zuma himself will regret why he became the president of the Republic…. whats next in this soap opera
“OH MY GOD – did you hear…..? JZ said the kids was his”
“do you think they will do a paternity test?”
wife 4 walks toward camera lips pursed
two cows and goat walk through the shot…. screen fades que music
and so flow our taxes through the rands of time – in these “Days of our Wives”
I see Zuma said in the statement “I confirm that I have a relationship and a baby with Ms Sonono Khoza.” He does not claim to be married to Ms Khoza.
Zuma and his ANC cohorts have never displayed respect for the law, the courts and the judiciary. they think the ANC owns South Africa and those who live in it. It is common practice for the high and mighty to abuse women from the ANC rank and file and there is a perception that this practice is across the board. Remember the incident between Mbeki and Madikizela-Mandela, i mean the cause for the animosity displayed at the aUnion Buildings. We have also seen how the laws of the country have been flouted to suit scumbags like Zuma, Shaik to quote but a few. The sad part is that while he runs around manufacturing children, and marrying women, the Tax-payers will be expected to foot the bills. We have already paid for the motorcade that is reported to have been seen at Irvin Khoza’s house and most likely for the undisclosed amount paid as damages. It is a proven fact in court that in 2006/7 he could not afford his children at the time hence Shaik had to pay for his children school fees etc. I shudder to think that twenty children and three wives later he may be in a worse off financial situation considering the top of the range suits and designer shoes he is weraring. Zuma and the ANC can fool some of the people some of the time, but they can not fool all of the people all of the time. By their mere disrespect of the law and the judiciary, they are bringing to life the saying that Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely………..i rest my case
Zuma is proving time after time that he is in Governement by default and that he is no leader. i think he could have been better off left to run after the cows that he seemingl did with distinction. He has proven instance after instance that he is NOT a leader but a clown that run around having unprotected sex with children of his FRIENDS almsot half his age while he has three other fat wives in the back-ground. The insane part of the whole saga is that tradition and culture is offered as a reason for his irresponsible sick and immoral conduct…he should be exposed for the spineless, characterless illiterate opportunist that he is….
Dumisani Mkhize says:
February 3, 2010 at 14:22 pm
“Stop your racist rants and face up to the truth that Zuma was a wrong choice for President.”
Ditto on the “racist rants” bits.
I disagree that it is “the truth that Zuma was a wrong choice for President”.
Why do you think that?
Andresj says:
February 4, 2010 at 6:27 am
“Zuma and his ANC cohorts have never displayed respect for the law, the courts and the judiciary”.
How do you conclude that?
It seems to me that your comment is the flip side of Musa’s.
Come on MaggsNaidu, grow up!Which South Africa do you live in where you did not hear hear Mantashe, Malema, Nzimande, Vavi Duarte and anybody who could open their mouth insulting and intimidating the judges of high corts appelate division and constitutional court calling them counterevolutionaries and racists and all that… because the cohorts felt they were out to destry Zuma. the called for a reform of the Judicial System so that it would in the end suit their selfish and political needs. when i comment i do not give a hoot what Musa says, i give you my comment and take on what i understand Zuma and his cohorts to do and be. i do not see the world through Musa s eyes but through my own
Why do people keep saying that our taxes are paying for the maintenance of Zuma’s children? As far as I know the government does not have a budget specifically for the maintenance of the President’s children, which budget would increase as the number of children increases. As far as I know, Zuma has to support his children with the salary he earns as a President and that salary also does not increase as the number of children increase.
He of course always has the option of supplementing his income by obtaining interest free “loans” from his “friends” in business in exchange for his “friendship” in order to pay his children’s schoolfees etc.
The President’s communication team may be thinking of the many complaints Prime Minister Blair made about media intrusion into the lives of his children. The complaints were many and various. The most famous one was his undertaking to send his children to a state school in Islington after he became PM, but then he sent his children to a catholic school in another burrough. The issue was putting his family where his policies were.
All Blair could do was complain to the Press Council which in one adjudication asserted:
“It is manifestly the role, and responsibility, of the press to scrutinise Government policies and the conduct of those responsible for them. The press should be entitled to relate such scrutiny to the children of politicians where their conduct in matters relating to their children has an impact on policy or gives rise to reasonable charges of hypocrisy. In appropriate cases this might provide the exceptional public interest justification required by the Code.”
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=MTgzMQ
Has the Presidency laid a complaint against our press code?
Andresj says:
February 4, 2010 at 7:34 am
It would be helpful if there was something substantive especially to help the “ungrownup” in me to understand why you think “Zuma and his ANC cohorts have never displayed respect for the law, the courts and the judiciary”.
Some specific examples would be very helpful.
Maggs, unfortunately there are quite a few examples:
(1) The firing of Vusi Pikoli on spurious grounds which was probably unlawful as he was found to be a fit and proper person by Ginwala but was then fired for not being a fit and proper person.
(2) The dropping of charges against Zuma, which was the result of Zuma’s team tendering illegally obtained transcripts of private phone conversations and the NPA then dropping charges based on reasons not allowed by the prosecuting policy to which the NPA is bound.
(3) The various cases where ANC municipalities evict people unlawfully without obtaining court orders.
(4) The treatment of social movement activists by ANC aligned politicians and the persecution of such activists.
(5) Matashe calling the judges of the Constitutional Court counter-revolutionaries and other ANC members stating that Moseneke was a drunk etc etc etc.
(6) Threats before the Nicholson judgment about “war” if the judgment went against Zuma.
(7) Manto going on TV and statings he would ignore a Constitutional Court order to provide HIV pregnant mothers with Nevirapine.
This country is going to hell because people like you Maggs naidu refuse to tell the truth or comment appropriately. this makes idiots like the cohorts and their leaders to think they own South Africa and those who live in it. they asume that everybody who is black, indian or coloured is ANC or should be ANC. this myopic view and a collective stupidity of people like Maggs Naidu fuels the intensity and fast tracks the destruction of this country. mark my words, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…you will realise that when the corruption in Governments hits you and destroys the Economic foundations of this country. the last recession/deression was not because of the Global Meltdown as in major Economic blocks (wich in reality, we are not part of) but in South Africa as in most African countries, the melt down was corruption induced…and irresponsible talks like Nationalization of mines and stupid government policies that are taking us backwards economically instead of forwrd. your ANC and leaders are trying out dangerous Economic experiments they know nothing about…look at the BEE, EPWP, or SETA systems,or GEAR, or RDP or Affirmative Actio (that failed almost everywhere in the world). BEE has helped to create arrogant andselfish middle class black elite who are forever indebted to banks that helped finance these uselss deals, to the rest of poor SA citizens, and BEE most importandly helped to fuel corruption and looting of state resources for the benefit of the ANC through its business arms and the selected few…then Maggs Naidu you can tell me these people have respect to the laws of the country and its citizens? if you sincerely believe that then you are as naive, stupid and a fool like the cohorts and their leadership
Pierre De Vos says:
February 4, 2010 at 7:51 am
Aw Pierre – you took out all the fun. I was rather enjoying the ranting and raving
.
Anyway
1 Pikoli settled that matter so as far as he is concerned, all’s well that ends well.
2. The tapes thing – as far as I know the jury is still out on that. I thought the DA had brought some legal challenge in that regard
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5.
You do worse. It’s the freedom of expression thing – nothing unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional about that.
6. See 5.
7. As far as I know HIV pregnant mothers are being provided with Nevirapine – Manto was just being Manto.
Andresj says:
February 4, 2010 at 7:56 am
You missed Global Warming, Bafana Bafana, 49 school children in a minibus with a drunken driver and much more.
Shakira, Shabir Shaik stated in a public court that he loaned Zuma the money for his general expenses and piad for his children’s school fees etc. Zuma was an MEC in KZN then. now twenty children and three wives and some concubines later do you tell me he can afford anything with the rand so weak (you can wipe your backside with it )and food prices going so high and general inflation galloping ot of control where even government ministers resort to Travellgate and corruption and help themselves to Government contracts and tenders to supplement their income. where the general working class are retrenched and their houses and cars are repossessed these are people who do not have three wives, mistresses and twenty children… and you have a nerve to suggest Zuma can afford expensive suits and designer shoes and still be able to feed at least twenty three mouths?
I refer to Musa’s post of yesterday: “Someday the black population of this country will see through all these actions which are taking us back to apartheid.”
Musa, its my humble opinion that we have already been taken back to apartheid. However, it is the minorities who are the victims of this apartheid, regardless of the wealth we may have accumulated. What I see in posts by obviously well educated individuals is that the apartheid oppressing us, whites, coloured, Indians, is producing greater and greater hate, separation and fear.
Our principle fear is the concerted attack on our precious Constitution, whereby government regularly either attacks it or ignores it with impunity, thus continuing to undermine the rights so many fought for, rights intended for all the people, not just blacks, rights designed to develop an advancing free South Africa, unique and respected world wide.
Speaking as a proud white person committed to the people through my thoughts, words and deeds, I am aghast at the damage the ANC is doing to this, our wonderful country.
As much as it might pain you to do so, I suggest you read the extracts from Helen Zille’s recent speech, posted in today’s Cape Times. It will clearly and accurately inform you, without any racist bite to it, how we who are educated and concerned about South Africa see our present situation. If you cannot bring yourself to read it, then you need to accept you are not willing to listen or try to understand the issues experienced by those on the other side of the apartheid, which is South Africa today.
if you want my opinion on global warming, follw the link below:
http://greenindustries.ning.com/profile/ahmedrufai?xg_source=msg_member_join
oh By the way, Pierre De Vos thanks for putting Maggs naidu in her place. and as a proffessor yourself, you will understand when i say i have to go nad do what professors do. nice and lively blog
I am amazed at the turn of this debate, particularly on something this straightforward. The fact is that Zuma slept with a woman who was not his wife and impregnated her. He is therefore an adulterer and clearly is not a regular use of a condom. On both counts he is in deviance of ANC policy, government policy, public policy and his own utterances, in so far as the implications and unacceptable nature of adultery and non-condom use. He clearly has acted contrary to what he professes and what his party and government professes, and therefore is either a liar or does not care. I suspect he is both a liar and does not care. Sadly there will not be any consequences because, firstly, he has the media and the thought leaders on his side since his policies are good for business (which invariably prefers opportunities arising from corruption and in any case finances the media and though leaders), secondly, he has the Tripartite Alliance o on his side because they fully and unwisely linked all their fortunes to him (and in any event they wish to plunder the fiscus and know he is so compromised that he will do nothing), thirdly, he has the white community on his side and they love him because he represents the stereotypical African potentate, they can therefore continue, together with business, to fleece the poor whilst knowing that they will blame the buffoonery of the leader and government for all our problems, and blame the poor for having brought it all to themselves.
way to go Vuyo
http://greenindustries.ning.com/profile/ahmedrufai?xg_source=msg_member_join
New development: “The President of the Republic, President Jacob Zuma will today and tomorrow 4-5 February, take time off to rest following a hectic schedule,” a presidency statement said.
Spin! Very few people will believe that the sudden announcement has anything to do with the President’s “hectic schedule” (which was known for a long time). Most of us will assume the President is trying to recover from the shame and embarrasment of the revelations of his private life and hopes that two days our of the lime light will allow the story of his child to die down. Fat chance. Or is there something more to the story? Are there perhaps the first rumblings within the ANC and the alliance about the guy they chose as leader?
Pierre De Vos says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:40 am
“Very few people will believe that the sudden announcement has anything to do with the President’s ‘hectic schedule’”
hahahaha.
Pierre all the excitement has been about our President’s “hectic schedules”.
Many wanted him to calm down a bit.
Andresj says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:12 am
“Shakira…and you have a nerve to suggest Zuma can afford expensive suits and designer shoes and still be able to feed at least twenty three mouths?”
I never suggested anything of this sort. I merely stated that the Presidency (as far as I know) does not have a budget for the maintenance of the President’s children which increases as his children increase. As such the taxpayer is not affected by the growing number of children. His wives also do not earn a salary. He has to maintain them with his Presidential salary. Whether he can afford to do so is another matter. At least his latest conquest is a banking executive, so one would expect her to be reasonably financially independent.
According to the Mail and Guardian, the Presidency advertised vacancies for personal assistants for each of his wives at a salary of approximatley R 145 000 per annum for per assistant. I do not have an issue in principle with the polygamy thing but this does concern me as it place an extra burden on the fiscus, which is already taking strain because of our budget deficit.
I am not sure how relevant this is but there are of course indirect costs to the taxpayer when the President has a child. There are free flights and medical aid expenses that will be incurred by another child. Other expenses will have to be paid out of bthe President’s salary.
@ Pierre – there’s some indication of costs here :
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-08-zumastyle-home-economics
Maggs Naidu write: “I disagree that it is “the truth that Zuma was a wrong choice for President”. Why do you think that?
I’ll give you a couple of reasons (not exhaustive by any means):
• He sets a bad example with his hypocrisy on AIDS/HIV statement and questionable morals.
• His indecision in most matters of governance .eg. Why can’t he clarify Trevor Manuels so-called ‘powerful structure’? What is his position on nationalization, etc…
• His incoherent answers in interviews.
• His questionable appointments of lackeys and cronies.
• His compromised association with shady characters such as Shaik
• His failure to espouse a vision for the country
• His propensity to lie even under oath
• Service delivery?
Now, Maggs Naidu, can you tell me why you think Zuma is the right choice to lead South Africa to prosperity? (I know he is not Mbeki)
Leigh says:
February 3, 2010 at 14:26 pm
Leigh, I couldn’t have said it better, that comment shows concern with well balanced humor, I liked it a lot. Andréj, you must remember that even if what you say is true, sometimes you can create the impression that you are glad that these events occurred so you justify your hatred, usually people who likes this sort of sensation (and I’m not saying you are one of them) are the ones who gives a guy enough rope to hang himself, this mentality prevents one from being able to educate trough his concern and will not assist in solving the problem off mass ignorance.
As Cicero might have said about Zuma: “Facta eius cum dictis discrepant”. If your actions and words are not concordant, how can you be trusted as Leader of the nation. That’s why your private life as president is important to the public.
@Ntanjana: As for wanting the ANC to fail: hell no! Even though I support the DA, I want the ANC to make a success of running the country. They are going in government for a long time, so they had better shape up or drag us all down.
Maybe it is time Government Ministers and Palamentarians should earn a salary based on their Educational level like everyone else. i can tell you once the salary get market related and stops enjoying legislative and other protections, we shall galdly have real POLITICIANS and not opportunists…we will have people who have politics at heart rather than personal enrichment, plundering and looting of state coffers. we will have people who are serious about protecting the constitution and enforce the rule of law and be accountable to the Citiens/people rather than to the party…we will have people who care about taking South Africa forward rather than lining their pockets with underved monies from the state and drive two BMW at more that a million rand a pop. maybe for once south africa will realize real economic and social growth particularly in morally related issues, and matters of public interest like health and education
Friend, i do not hate nor am i sensational…ever heard of the phrase that: “Truth Hurts?” maybe you are one of the beneficiaries of the Gravy Train or you are on it yourself…
if you need people who hate, go and speak to people who will kill and take up arms for Zuma
Offering reasons as to why Zuma is unsuited to political office is not as straightforward an affair as many of us would like to believe. And the reason for that is simple: just as Tiger found it hard to pick a paramour from his speed dial, so we find it equally vexing to pick a fault from Zuma’s impressive body of failings.
Zuma’s press statement discloses one reason as to why he is not suited to political life. The statement is silent on the topic of the possibility that Zuma’s conduct contradicts his public expressions. And to my mind, sometimes we are justified in deducing from such inconsistencies that the public figure in question is not to be trusted.
On something of a broader scale, many of the more prominent ANC figures are probably not suited to politics in the context of constitutional democracies. Many of them are crass. And many of them are just far too sensitive for the sometimes justifiably invasive scrutiny that politicians will suffer. On the crass score, I will trust that enough time has passed since Manto’s death for us to have a discussion about her that can be confined to her shortcomings. I recently saw a repeat broadcast of the Dennis Davis television show. And quite frankly, watching Manto stutter and mumble her way out of answering a narrow, direct question was appalling. That sort of cack-handed deflection (although usually minus the mumbling) is pretty much Plan “A” as regards the ANC media relations policy. And for a second instance thereof, Jeff Radebe’s defence of the Simelane appointment further amplifies that view. In brief, South Africa deserves a far better calibre of politician. Ours, in very much the main, just aren’t good enough in terms of wit.
As regards the sensitivity score, this is actually really simple: when one is in a position to make decisions that bear materially on the lives of others, those people will be justified in wanting to know what sort of person the decision-maker happens to be. In sum, Zuma should not have taken the job if he was not prepared to have his character scrutinized. And the ANC should take exception to so thin-skinned a chief. I mean, few people would expect Zuma to be fearless. But he has yet to show even the smallest measure of political fortitude – and by fortitude, I mean the nerve to embrace the dictates of a constitutional democracy.
Here’s an extract from Judge WJ van Der Merwe, while handing down judgement in S v Zuma (rape case).
“It is totally unacceptable that a man should have nprotected sex with any person other than his regular partner and definitely not with a person who to his knowledge is HIV positive. I do not even want to comment on the effect of a shower after having had unprotected sex. Had Rudyard Kipling known of this case at the time he wrote his poem “If” he might have added the following: “And if you can control your
body and your sexual urges, then you are a man my son.”
Exactly what is entailed in Zuma’s schedule that warrants exhaustion…in all serious fairness he is doing nothing other than hoping into a plane and read paers and position statements written by Luthuli house. And then Zuma has a nerve to try and draw attention from his promiscuous deeds and adulterous relations and cry foul on the media violating his child’s rights…he should have thought about that before embarkingon a hectic schedule of making babies out of wedlock
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-02-04-all-the-presidents-children
“In order to establish whether he is a sexist patriarch or whether he really respects gender equality”
This was the point at which I realised that your attitude towards President Zuma is like a fundamentalist Zionist’s attitude towards Israel. The point has been made over and over and over again, but you cannot accept it as the truth, so every time the evidence of Zuma’s unfitness arises, you pretend that history never existed.
I believe it is called Korsakow’s syndrome — the total destruction of long-term memory.
Dumisani Mkhize says:
February 4, 2010 at 10:03 am
“Now, Maggs Naidu, can you tell me why you think Zuma is the right choice to lead South Africa to prosperity?”
“I know he is not Mbeki” – now there’s a darn good reason which over rides all other objections!
On the morals thing – I have had opposite views. One says that Zuma is setting a terrible example and his conduct in that regard is deplorable. The other (and I was “interrogated” at length) is how do we define moral standards and who pronounces on whether or not Zuma’s conducts meets “moral” standards. I tried to raise the “role model” aspect and the retort was that children should learn mainly in the home and if that is faulty it’s not Zuma to blame. I still stand by my original view that he ought to conduct himself better than he has done.
I agree with you that there is not nearly enough that we know about what is going on in government and where Zuma stands in regard to many matters of national (even international) significance. He needs to get rid of his PR people and get some with some spunk.
Of course he has some real shady and “shaiky” people close to him. But if the people around a leader were to be used as a yardstick, nobody will become president ever.
Service delivery is a process – it’s unlikely that much change is going to happen in less than ten months. Again I agree that there is not enough emphasis in ensuring that people get their fingers out of their noses and start working seriously.
Back to your question “can you tell me why you think Zuma is the right choice” – I am struggling with that.
I thought I would say that he’s a unifier – the evidence suggests otherwise, whether we look at relationships between the ANC and it’s alliance partners or among the different groupings within the ANC it seems that people are at each others throats and it’s getting worse.
I thought of saying that he’s a good leader – but with senior leaders of government and the ANC getting treated very badly by, for example, the youth, the good leader argument will not stand.
I thought of saying that he’s committed to service delivery – but so far that’s all we hear is of the commitment; there’s hardly much new since May 2009.
Under the Zuma leadership, the space for robust debate has opened up – on the downside we’re descending in the extreme instances to rowdy brawls and street fighting and succumbing to the most ugly and ferocious noises, rather than properly informed carefully reasoned arguments.
Until I can build my case, will you settle for that he’s very charismatic? Guess not
No, actually the space for “robust debate” has virtually shut down, partly because of the failure of journalists to cover the Zuma administration, partly because of the mass purges of dissidents from the ANC.
However, an important issue is also the way in which the Zuma administration provides distractions for journalists and pundits to talk about, thus pretending that they are doing their jobs.
In the end, Zuma’s sex life, squalid as it is, does not matter so much as his failure to fulfil his obligations as a political leader. (That is, failure to compel the Cabinet to perform its duties, failure to meet obligations and keep promises made to the electorate, failure to provide intellectual leadership even if the most basic kind.) It is this failure which is not being discussed, and vapid pretenses that Zuma is a charismatic person (so was Mussolini, at least in the eyes of the fascist media) do not stand meaningfully in the place of this failure.
If the policy and administrative failures of the Zuma administration were being discussed, then Zuma’s lack of private morality might provide a counterpoint to this. Instead, we are invited to look on Zuma as we look on a drunk Hollywood starlet flashing her cunt while she tumbles out of a convertible. Superficially that’s less harsh to Zuma, but it’s also treating him on a much more contemptible level.
Andre du Plessis says:
February 3, 2010 at 17:43 pm
“OH MY GOD – did you hear…..? JZ said the kids was his”
“do you think they will do a paternity test?”
wife 4 walks toward camera lips pursed
two cows and goat walk through the shot…. screen fades que music
and so flow our taxes through the rands of time – in these “Days of our Wives”
I loved this & permissively forwarded to some! !
conversely tho journalists have very littler to report about the zuma administration simply cos there is nothing significant to report about?other than unemployment is on the rise the half a million jobs in six months has fallen flat to say the least. 2010 looms & where from there? i`d say SA is between a rock and a hard place,
A whoring cunt who is failing to lead?
Could this wave of public interest result in the president suffering a bit of shame and humiliation – that’s if he hasn’t already? The answer is probably yes. The next question is: could the citizenry ultimately benefit if the media – and various commentators – continue to press this business of Zuma’s dodgy dealings? I just wonder whether that is possible.
In our country, the standard voting pattern does not coincide with common sense. And yes, I am certainly saying that if our electorate, in the aggregate, could lay proper claim to such sense, the ANC, in its present manifestation, would not thrive. And given that our electorate is out of touch with good sense, it may just follow that perhaps the ideal way of holding officials accountable (at the polls) is off the table for now. So the question becomes whether promoting or prolonging any embarrassment the president currently suffers could amount to an imperfect way to hold Zuma accountable.
In the wider order of things, none of us can truly know whether the ANC will just close ranks around Zuma. For myself, I think it is unlikely that the ANC will start to smell what the president is cooking – although it has to be said that apparently, many of my fellow bloggers surely do and what’s even more encouraging is that it seems that at least one body of South African’s comprises a racial mix of people who boast a healthy measure of common sense. Notwithstanding any improbability as to the ANC starting to ask serious enough questions about its leader, it could be that the ANC has established something of a precedent for ostracising embarrassing figures. That is, Radebe didn’t exactly try to protect Hlophe in Kliptown last year. So maybe Zuma should think about getting his dicks in a row.
@ Leigh
“his dicks in a row”
is that his secret?
I do not see how [exactly] the rights of this child may be adversely affected. Afterall, she is the child of the president… and the president has aknowledged the child [can anyone explain fot me please].
As for the pres himself, I fully agree with those who advance arguments that he should step down [as soon as yesterday]. Besides this recent bombshell, you will remember that he was literall shoved down our throats. Threats were made, the party was divided, insults, lies [remember the 500K jobs by Dec 2009]…
A child out of wedlock is definitely not a Zulu culture… a Zuma culture maybe.
I am totally disappointed with Mr. President… and those who are at pains to defend his actions – even going to an extent of dragging the race issue into this matter.
Terror Lekota; Kenneth Moshoe; De Lille and many other black people have condemned this action. How about that one [Musa]… are they also racist? Oh, none of them is Zulu… so you may as well pull a tribal card. It’s not gonna work Bro!
Zuma has erred… not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not…
I agree with leigh, the pressure must remain on both the president and the ANC for doing virtually nothing, that is apart from eating away like vermin at the underpinnings of the country and our society.
You may recall the Watergate fiasco with Richard Nixon. There were many who said, that for all his stubborn strength, in the end he couldn’t handle the public’s increasing negative view of him, that it was not the law which brought him down but the people voicing strong opposition to his, may I say, dastardly deeds.
Effectively he capitulated… to the chattering classes, and resigned.
Apparently, where Zulu people have a child out of wedlock, they breach custom. If that’s true, then the question becomes: to what extent, if any, will Zuma’s conduct adversely affect his standing with our Zulu country women and men?
I can’t even offer informed conjecture on the abovementioned score. But I do think that the topic could have some pretty interesting political implications. That is, if it’s the case that Zulu people are deeply averse to what Zuma did, then Zuma may have prejudiced himself – and to whatever extent, the broader ANC camp – politically.
I would just add that if it turns out that Zuma did breach custom, then at least we can say that he regards legislation and tradition equally. That is to say, he has demonstrated repeatedly that he could care less about legislative prohibitions and directives. And it may turn out that he is equally dismissive of Zulu custom. In other words, we have cause to believe that Zuma is a sexist, ignorant, self-serving scoundrel. But he’s not all that afro centric.
The Creator says:
February 4, 2010 at 12:28 pm
“In the end, Zuma’s sex life, squalid as it is, does not matter”.
Indeed it does not. As Michael Osborne said elsewhere it’s juicy gossip at most
Even though I was unable to come up with something coherent in response to Dumisani, I have not been convinced not to support Zuma or his administration.
Despite their painfully slow pace at tangible progress, it’s far too early to apportion responsibility to the current administration for the failure of service delivery.
If President Zuma, after having refused to pardon or reprieve the IFP members, who were imprisoned for “politically related” crimes (probably correctly so), now pardons de Kok and Shaik that may lead to an entirely different perspective on the man who is our President.
@ Maggs
“7. As far as I know HIV pregnant mothers are being provided with Nevirapine – Manto was just being Manto.”
Maggs, I can only congratulate you on your fortitude and your sheer imaginativeness. No question, you win the grand prize for defending the bloody indefensible.
I know a faithful Catholic who can find fewer and fewer reasons to stay in the mother church. Yet he will never leave – because he feels he has absolutely nowhere else to go.
Perhaps you could compare notes with him some day.
Maggs, I think you assume that you could never vote for a party apart from the ANC. Moreover, I think this is an assumption that you have yet to earnestly interrogate. You already know how to do so: you simply take an honest look at the causes for your partisanship to the ANC. And as you will know, the truest causes may not be the reasons you articulate.
It is not for me to suggest what those causes may be. For a start, it’s not my place. Secondly, I could only guess anyway. And thirdly, even if I did make the right determination, it would be far too easy for you to dismiss that position. But with all respect, it must surely occur to you that you cannot offer convincing reasons for supporting the ANC given the thoroughly disreputable nature of its figures. For instance, Manto peddled a ridiculous medical opinion, was complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and publicly threatened to flout a Constitutional Court ruling. I ask that you make it clear to me how the “Manto was just being Manto” submission serves as a sensible excuse.
Manto being just Manto, well that is actually what South Africa is all about in this, our modern African age. Manto just being Manto, alive or otherwise. Mind you, it certainly isn’t best for the country or its people. Does anyone truly intelligent question this? Zuma just being Zuma. The ANC just being the ANC.
Denial is so soothing. Regardless, the unnecessary nightmares continues.
. . . like rands flowing through SARS, these are the days of his wives. . .
~Even though I was unable to come up with something coherent in response to Dumisani, I have not been convinced not to support Zuma or his administration.~
Maggs, how about if you put country before party…
Just a thought.
Leigh says:
February 4, 2010 at 18:55 pm
“I ask that you make it clear to me how the “Manto was just being Manto” submission serves as a sensible excuse.”
I think you are already aware of how I would respond.
I have written previously that I neither voted for nor campaigned for the ANC during those years.
Dave A says:
February 4, 2010 at 19:59 pm
I am confident that this administration will, given time and pressure, get it’s act together.
And I am still inspired by the strength and character of many of the intellectuals in the ANC.
Here’s an example http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?include=pubs/umsebenzi/2010/vol9-03.html
If I can contribute in a small way to building the ANC, I reckon that it will go a long way in contributing to my country. And I think that undermining the ANC will have the opposite effect.
Michael Osborne says:
February 4, 2010 at 18:02 pm
Hail Mary to you too!
it would be helpful if the Gender Commission took a position – other than supine – on the merits of this matter. tic
Magss Naidu:
” I am confident that this administration will, given time and pressure, get its act together.”
I hope and wish for all our sake that you are right.
damn damn damn …. His wives … His Wives…
but I’m paying too… I’m screwed if I pay the prostitute but don’t get laid
Maggs Naidu says:
February 4, 2010 at 20:36 pm
“I am confident that this administration will, given time and pressure, get it’s act together.”
I would say this is an an unequivocal acknowledgement of the fact that the ANC administration does not have its act together, with the added complication that without both time and presure, it won’t get its act together. With that coming from a Zuma supporter, how much confidence can the non-Zuma supporters have in the ANC?
Chris says:
February 5, 2010 at 6:58 am
“I would say this is an an unequivocal acknowledgement of the fact that the ANC administration does not have its act together, with the added complication that without both time and presure, it won’t get its act together.”
Not only does the administration not have it’s act together, given the scale of the challenges, it cannot have done so in the ten months since inauguration.
Chris – catch a glimpse of the Polokwane resolutions and the ANC election manifesto. That will give you a sense of the scale of the challenges, diverse and often conflicting.
Then add the distinct possibility that there are many in the service of the administration that think unkindly of it who, in my view, will attempt to undermine it in any which way they can.
Add to that the need to contain the “Kebblists” (see http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/lets-stand-up-against-the-racists-and-the-kebbilists/) and the greedy, corrupt, lazy and/or just criminal types who have worked their way into the system.
That said, it’s up to us to pressure this administration into high gear. That 18 schools (many repeat offenders) achieved zero pass rate in matric last year, for example, is a failing of this administration – no matter how that is spun that buck stops squarely on it.
People don’t have water and sanitation today. Hospitals don’t have resources today. These things cannot wait while inefficient bureaucrats waddle about. People will die as a result. It really cannot be that hard to get rid of those in critical posts who cannot perform. They don’t even have to be fired – send them to work in the army or railways.
President Zuma and his ministers knew what they were getting into when they volunteered – now they must do their work and do it with a sense of urgency.
Our President ought to stand up and show his teeth and some determined leadership. The inter and intra organisational cackle and fighting is not advancing the cause of the organisations or of the country. The energy has to be redirected to building rather than destroying – it’s up to Zuma to lead.
“Under the Zuma leadership, the space for robust debate has opened up.”
Actually, no. Any sensible, substantive debate is quickly shut down by the ANCYL brownshirts.
@ Gwen
ANCYL has neither the capacity nor the appetite to close down debate.
Sitting on the fence, Selfishness and loyalty are best enemies of debate.
@ Andresj:
I’m Congolese, I live in the U.S., and I defer on the legal aspect of this issue to the expert analysis of Pierre De Vos.
I’ll just point out the following: French President Mitterrand lived with two separate women at the same time, fathering a daughter with the second woman who was a respected civil servant and an author (she was a curator in the system of museums of France). Both women and their children showed up at Mitterrand’s funerals without the French media making a fuss about it. Likewise, in the on-going “scandal” of Tiger Woods, the French media don’t understand why what happened in his private life should impact what he does on the golf course (barring the sponsors who were selling a pristine image of the man to a stupid audience)….
But that’s not why I’m addressing you this comment…
I’m particularly incensed at your description of JZ’s wives, calling them “fat wives” (your comment of February 4, 2010 at 6:39 am)… I don’t know whether someone has already called you on that very unfortunate comment you made–especially in light of what some rightfully reproach to our friend Musa above.
My mother was you’d call “fat” but she was most beautiful… And most African-Americans date what you’d call “fat” women…
Beauty cannon is cultural too… What’s beautiful in your eyes might be ugly in the eyes of your Zulu fellow citizen Zuma.
Talking of what you call Zuma’s “fat wives,” here is what I wrote in a post on my blog on the occasion of his marriage to Thobeka Madiba:
“A chubby woman like Thobeka Madiba is the African equivalent of British supermodel Kate Moss. It’s just a fact: we, African men, like plump women—not obese, mind you, but strong and sturdy breeders (well, ideally). That’s why when I see on TV those skinny African beauty contestants, I ask myself whether the African judges of these contests are using Western yardsticks to select competing candidates…”
(http://alexengwete.blogspot.com/2010/01/insane-killjoy-afrikaner-sorcerer.html)
Well, Andresj, the world is a strange place indeed! And you need to apologize to Zuma’s “fat wives” and to all the South African beautiful chubby women–of all races!
Well, you’re also African but with other standards for beauty. For most of your black fellow citizens, what you call “fat” may be the epitome of the ideal woman!…
shakira says:
February 5, 2010 at 5:13 am
“I hope and wish for all our sake that you are right.”
The time has arrived for Zuma to “retire”.
He has done what was needed – now he can retire and conduct his “private affairs” in the way that is appropriate to him.
I sure hope he is big enough to accept that his lifestyle and lack of leadership does not help in building the shape and character of the ANC and the country.
For the sake of the ANC and for the sake of the country, I sure hope that he does the right thing and quits while he is ahead.
His personal actions and many of his decisions as President are indefensible.
PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA’S STATEMENT ON THE IMPACT OF EVENTS OF THE PAST WEEK
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article294882.ece
Now if our President is truly regrets “the pain that I have caused to my family, the ANC, the Alliance and South Africans in general” and recognises “the responsibility of leaders to uphold and promote these values at all times” then he must do the right thing and resign as the president of the country and the ANC.
Neither the ANC nor the country is his to destroy!
Since we get what we deserve, why don’t we decide we deserve something better.
The irony is that all South Africa’s challenges have proven solutions, which will work if implemented. Many countries have faced similar problems and found workable processes to deal with them. However, we must have the leaders and public servants who are willing and determined to deliver. That they don’t is shortsighted and lacking true compassion.
Maggs, I must say I am disappointed at your disloyalty to JZ, and to the party.
Do you want Helen “Botox” Zille to take the reins next?
She will bring back capitalism and impoverish the people!
Am I though the only fool in the land (OK, apart from my brother Julius), who thinks this scandal is utterly overblown? I get the impression that media-whipped moralism is being manipulated by JZ’s enemies within the movement.
There are much, much better, reasons, my dear Maggs, to want JZ to out. A single Simelane is worth 1000 babies.
Michael Osborne says:
February 6, 2010 at 22:04 pm
“I get the impression that media-whipped moralism is being manipulated by JZ’s enemies within the movement”.
Of course it is.
Therein lies the problem. His “enemies” within the movement (there must be many) are the real and present danger.
At this time in our history, the country and the ANC needs a leader who is very strong, who is able to lead us through the morass of political challenges that are current and topical.
“Working together, we can do more” is what the ANC said during its election campaign. That’s not happening, instead there are several storms brewing within the ANC and between its alliance partners.
These are not insurmountable, but effective leadership is lacking – President Zuma, having compromised himself (and who knows what more may be lurking) is not up to the task, nor is there a way of restoring his political stature.
Given all that has happened and the allowances made for our President, there is simply no way of the ANC applying its disciplinary processes to any of its members, no matter how extreme their action may be.
Here’s another one that I sense is going to create political (maybe even civil) turmoil). President Zuma declined parole (even reprieve) of more than 200 IFP members, probably for good reason. If he now, as is reportedly planned, paroles Eugene de Kok/Shabir Shaik, it’s highly probable that the goodwill and empathy that for example led to the massive support in KZN in particular will dissipate.
If that happens, the question will be asked “if he can release the worst of apartheid’s killers and his friend, why not one of ‘our own’?”.
If he does not, Shaik has made it plain that he is not going down alone, some people that Zuma now has in his inner circle are not going to be happy with that.
I reckon that this storm presents our President the ideal opportunity to quit while ahead – he ought to take it, retire gracefully and be remembered as a true champion. It will serve him well to remember that former President Mandela for all his stature “retired” early as did former President Mbeki.
If Zuma is “recalled” before the end of his term his political carcass will be fed to the hyenas. And the people he has deployed to key CJ institutions are not the kind that will stand by the underdog.
OK, Maggs, I take your point; if one approaches this issue from a perspective within the movement, JZ, arguably, must resign now.
But you will understand that, to the extent one views the appointment of Mr Simelane as an atrocity against the rule of law, it is a little absurd to be hounding the President for violating the norms of middle class sexual morality.
A bit like condemning George Bush for his bad table manners.
Michael Osborne says:
February 7, 2010 at 7:39 am
The other way that President Zuma can retake control of the ANC and the country is by striking at the head of the beast.
He did that most effectively in his bid to become ANC President.
The beast is now the “out of control” characters.
I wonder how long the leash on young Julius is – if he cuts that leash the the focus will shift away from our president entirely and give him time to regroup.
@ Michael – the rock slide seems to have started.
“The comment follows a Rapport newspaper report that new legal grounds were considered for the release of Eugene de Kock and Schabir Shaik.
“An anonymous ANC source told the newspaper that “selective prosecution” would be cited as grounds for pardon.
“According to this principle, it is unfair that the individuals were convicted alone even though they acted with accomplices. They should therefore be released.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article295905.ece
I accept that there are better grounds for concluding that Zuma is not worthy of the office he currently occupies than the bases doing the rounds right now. For instance, and as Michael suggests, it would have spoken better of the ANC-partisan electorate had they kicked up a big stink about the Simelane appointment as it was (a) brazenly self-serving (b) almost certainly unlawful and (c) gravely and insidiously harmful. But that being said, it could ultimately be in the interests of our country for the press to continue pursuing this image-based attack on Zuma quite vigorously. And the two-faceted reason for that is pretty simple: first, while hoi polloi could probably care less about a decision that impairs the constitutionally contemplated independence of a core institution such as the NPA, he may well be incensed by the idea of the president acting in a manner that contradicts his very public professions on highly topical scores. And secondly, the criticisms that are presently being directed to Zuma on the one hand, and the Simelane appointment on the other, communicate the same message about the president: he is thoroughly self-serving. So personally I don’t much care which one exposes him as such to that portion of the electorate that needs to see this bloke for who he truly is: a lecherous sexist who has not the run of (or the first clue about the workings of) his administration.
This is an interesting debate. I suspect if there was not some latent uneasiness about JZ (the friendship with Shaik, the corruption charges, the rape trial, the dropping of charges the appointment of Simelane etc etc) people might have not reacted the way they did. Suddenly this one thing has given everyone permission to express their fears and embarrasment with the President which was otherwise difficult to express. And then there is the CHarlotte Bauer theory that many people feel JZ has disrespected their culture by going beyond what a “good” traditionalist is supposed to do.
Pierre De Vos says:
February 8, 2010 at 6:51 am
How’s this for comedy?
“I want you to note down the commitments we are going to be making, so that you will be able to ask us: ‘Why are you not doing what you said you are going to do?’,” he said. (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-02-08-zuma-appeals-for-unity-ahead-of-state-nation)
The question that is appropriate to ask our President would be “Why are you doing what you said you are not going to do?”
But to address your comment – the “latent uneasiness” as I see it, has to do less with the adverse issues and more to do with the slow pace of (or even lack of) progress on the important areas and the distinct lack of decisive leadership on several obvious and important fronts.
The important State of the Nation address on Thursday was intended also to be a tribute to Nelson Mandela – the nation’s (even the international community’s) readiness to receive that address has been neutered by the simple zip that refuses to stay closed.
I do not think it is especially contentious to claim that Zuma enjoyed a large measure of political goodwill. And if recent developments do not prove to be misleading, it could be that Zuma has finally made a mistake that has exhausted that goodwill.
One question is whether one can extract from the freshest Zuma scandal a fairly unsophisticated theory of present-day South African politics. I tend to think so. Actually, this theory is something which many South Africans have thought about for a good long while: support for politicians in this country is often not predicated on the individual’s contribution to governance. That support is generally based on misguided goodwill. That goodwill can serve as a veil of sorts – a veil which actually obscures a good deal of disgruntlement. And a risk which some disastrously ineffectual political figures run is that they could (a) make a fatal mistake that would exhaust all of that wrongheaded goodwill and (b), those figures, given their incompetence, would then have no defence against an indignant electorate.
So maybe Zuma’s holiday is finally over. Maybe he has finally given the ordinary man on the street an ordinary enough reason to say what Joe Bloggs has longed to say for some while.
Michael Osborne says:
February 7, 2010 at 7:39 am
“it is a little absurd to be hounding the President for violating the norms of middle class sexual morality.”
The absurd then may define the road ahead.
“Publicly, the ruling African National Congress has backed the 67-year-old but in private senior party members feel the latest in a long line of sexual scandals is the “last straw”.
“He is becoming too much of a liability to the party and his image is damaging,” a member of the ANC’s national executive committee, who did not want to be named, told Reuters. “Polygamy and promiscuity is not the same thing.”
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE6170A120100208