Defenders of the decision by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Mokotedi “Kokkie” Mpshe, to drop charges against Mr Jacob Zuma make an important point that need to be answered.
I am not talking of the discredited and uninformed argument that Mpshe’s decision cannot be rewieved by a court. This argument is legally untenable and I have demolished it before.
Rather, I am talking about the political (or perhaps moral?) argument that those who say that the decision was legally untenable and that it was based on snippets of the illegally gained transcripts of conversations between the then head of the Scorpions and the previous NDPP, focus on the wrong thing and are hypocrites at best and elitist Zuma haters at worst.
Why, so the argument goes, do those of us who believe the decision was unconcionable keep on pointing out that the transcripts were obtained illegally and that a crime was committed while ignoring the shocking evidence of abuse of power by the NPA? Why do we minimise this abuse of power by talking about “mere” interference in the timing of the charges, when there was such clear abuse of the NPA by McCarthy and Ngcuka? Are we not rank hypocrites?
This is a good question that demands an answer.
The first thing to point out it that we do not know for certain whether actual interference occurred or, if it did, what the extent of this interference was. We have been provided with edited snippets of conversations which appear to show that Ngcuka and McCarthy were discussing the “best” timing for the charging of Zuma in order to try and influence the Polokwane vote. But this evidence have not been tested in court and surely – just like Zuma – Ngcuka and McCarthy must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
The snippets may have been taken out of context and may not be nearly as damning as Mpshe suggested. The conversations may not have had any actual influence on the timing of the charges – given that this decision was taken by Mpshe and not by McCarthy. Or this could be just the tip of the iceberg and the meddling in the Zuma matter may have gone much deeper than we suspect, Fact is, we simply do not know.
Second, the NPA has a constitutional duty to act without fear favour or prejudice. The NPA Act gives effect to this constitutional requirement by prohibiting anyone from interferencing with the work of the NPA. Anyone found to have done so is guilty of a crime and can be convicted and sentenced. It is absolutely imperative that if credible evidence exist of interference, those suspected of committing a crime must be prosecuted. Those who try to minimise this alleged abuse of power, are not doing the NPA or South Africa any favours.
But this is exactly the point: the way to deal with an alleged interference is to use the NPA Act to punish those who might have committed a crime. It is not to drop the charges of serious fraud and corruption against South Africa’s most powerful politician. One does not use a corkscrew to open a Coca Cola bottle, but that is exactly what Mpshe did. He used the wrong – extra-judicial – avenue to restore the credibility of the NPA and to punish the alleged wrongdoers, thus further eroding respect for and trust in the NPA.
Mpshe became prosecutor and judge at the same time and this is deeply problematic as it undermines the separation of powers between the NPA, which is an organ of state, and the judiciary, which is tasked with finding people guilty of a crime or acquitting them.
Third, the person who handed over the tapes and the one who received it are both also guilty of a crime. This is not a mere process matter and the Zuma supporters who make this argument. show a spectacular lack of respect for the law and for the rights enshrined in our Constitution.
The right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution and at the very least it means that unless exceptional circumstances exist and unless it is mandated by law, the private conversations between two citizens may never be handed over to a private person and may never be made public – unless those involved in the conversations gave their permission.
It would set an extremely dangerous precedent if the conversations of private citizens could be tapped by the Intelligence Agencies at will and then could be handed over to a private citizen in order to give that citizen a political and legal “get out of jail card”. It is the kind of abuse of state organs that Zuma and his supporters have been complaining about, but now that the abuse has resulted in Mr Zuma being let off the hook, they have thrown this principle out of the window.
This suggests that Mr Zuma and his supporters were not so much worried about the abuse of the NPA per se. They were worried about the abuse of the NPA only because that alleged abuse was directed at Zuma. This is so hypocritical and unprincipled that it takes the breath away. It goes to the heart of the Rule of Law and respect for the rights of citizens.
What Mr Zuma and his lawyers did – and what Mpshe entertained – was unconscionable and deeply disturbing and to point this out is NOT to minimise the importance of the shocking allegations of interference made by Mpshe.
It is those who make this argument who are unprincipled and hypocritical as they demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of, or respect for, the Rule of Law.
An example will illustrate how absurd and wrongheaded this argument is.
Say I am (wrongly) accused by X of taking a bribe from a student, then having sex with that student, and then awarding that student a 75% mark. Say I then try to defend myself by hiring a hitman (maybe Najma Peterson could avise here) to kill X. The fact that X made a false accusation (perhaps because X failed the course offered by me and had a vendetta against me) could NEVER justify the killing of X and those who would point this out would never be accused of hypocrisy or of not taking seriously the fact that X made a false charge.
The only legally sound and ethically responsible way to deal with such a situation would be for me to go to a disciplinary hearing and prove my innocence, then to have X charged with fraud. Respect for the Rule of Law requires nothing less. Mr Zuma and his lawyers – with a little bit of help from their friend Kokkie – chose a shortcut that show a shocking disrespect for the law and the legal process.
I honestly and fervently hope this was a once off abberration and that this is not the way Mr Zuma will rule South Africa, because if it is the latter, we all have to be very afraid indeed.
Pierre, I think your comments are, for the most part, well taken. I object only to your separation of powers argument. Every time a prosecutor considers the merits of a case — whether there has been an abuse so gross as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute — she is in a sense anticipating the view a judge might take if the matter goes to trial. But that does not in itself entail a SOP violation.
(See Mangu’s breezy dismissal of your arguments as “stretched” in The Weekender. Mangu’s comments suggest that he does not understand the legal debate here at all.)
Again a well thought out piece, Pierre. Of course this will not stop the disingenious Zuma supporters, who have been clutching on straws, from their ad hominem attacks or from providing other fallacious arguments.
The truth Pierre,is that we have to be afraid of a Zuma Presidency, because of what we now know about him; especially the threat to the Constitution, the Constitutional Court as well as his intention to mete out revenge to those he perceives as enemies.
By the way, Mpshe’s decision did not punish the perpetrators of evil, but it punished the people of South Africa who had nothing to do with the alleged meddling which has not even been tested in a court of law.
A good post, if a bit melo-dramatic.
You say: “It would set an extremely dangerous precedent if the conversations of private citizens could be tapped by the Intelligence Agencies at will and then could be handed over to a private citizen in order to give that citizen a political and legal “get out of jail card”.
This should of course go without saying.
But I’d submit that we keep the two issues separate. Manipulation of the prosecution by the NPA is one issue.
Illegal handing over of intelligence is another.
I think that Xolela Mangcu is so emotionally involved in this issue that he over reacts – a bit like you Pierre. He was one of the intellectuals that were called all kinds of names by Mbeki and his lieutenants for daring to speak out. Mangcu is very grateful that somebody at last stood up to Mbeki.
Furthermore I think he bristles at the suggestion that the pro-Zuma supporters are irrational – as many suggest. I think he detects a big dose of snobism in the the anti-Zuma reaction.
And I agree with him. Mbeki – never – even now got the brickbats that Zuma is getting.
But of course its a grand mistake to be over sentimental about Zuma saving us from Mbeki – especially if it causes us to fail to see a new danger.
“Mpshe became prosecutor and judge at the same time and this is deeply problematic as it undermines the separation of powers between the NPA, which is an organ of state, and the judiciary, which is tasked with finding people guilty of a crime or acquitting them.”
And Ngcuka wasn’t doing the same thing when he decided not to prosecute Zuma – when he said he had “prima facie evidence” that Zuma was guilty of corruption ? Surely it is the job of the judiciary to determine whether the “prima facie evidence” was good enough after the defense had been given the opportunity to challenge that evidence and introduce new evidence in a court of law.
“The first thing to point out it that we do not know for certain whether actual interference occurred or, if it did, what the extent of this interference was. We have been provided with edited snippets of conversations which appear to show that Ngcuka and McCarthy were discussing the “best” timing for the charging of Zuma in order to try and influence the Polokwane vote.”
The fact is it is totally irrelevant if “actual interference occurred”. McCarthy had no business whatsoever discussing the merits or any details of the Zuma case with Ngcuka, a private citizen.
“It would set an extremely dangerous precedent if the conversations of private citizens could be tapped by the Intelligence Agencies at will and then could be handed over to a private citizen in order to give that citizen a political and legal “get out of jail card”.”
More nonsense – McCarthy was much more than a private citizen ; he was also the head of the Scorpions and had previously been found to be involved in illegal activities such as abusing the Scorpions to spy on “political enemies”.
There was a second part to Pierre’s statement, Ozone: “and then could be handed over to a private citizen”. How about dealing with that bit?
Ozoneblue, agreed on Ngcuka. My point is that a crime was committed here to let someone off the hook and this is a bad, bad precedent. Whether McCarthy was head of Scorpions or not – it was illegal to hand over conversations he had in private to a private citizen who used them to “get out of jail”.
Sarah Palin @ 12:55 am
There is absolutely no evidence that it was “handed over”. It could have been “leaked” to the media or any other third party who could have “leaked” it to Zuma’s lawyers. That kind of thing happened all the time under Ngcuka and McCarthy and nobody, besides the Public Protector and judge Hefer had a problem with that ? Or are we talking lank Double Standards again ?
So, was Judge Nicholson “got to”? I love a good conspiracy theory, but this is not an entirely flippant question.
Without saying anything about the judge himself, or his possible motivation or integrity, I was asking what I could infre fromt he overall flow of the case.
In August last year, Mr Zuma was dead and buried, legally and politically. Then came the last-minute application before Nicholson. am convinced that Hulley had this up his sleeve for at least a year, and it was the last gambit.
Fast-forward briefly to 2009. The ANC was alomst expecting the SCA to overturn Nicholson. We also know that there is (almost?) nothing that they will not do to secure power for Mr Zuma and his cohort of backers. Going to trial would have destroyed the cohort, and not just Zuma.
So if they were facing annihialation in August, and the Nicholson application was a last-gasp desperate measure, a last throw of the dice, who could say that they were not prepared to laod the dice a little. After all, he would have known that he would be overturned on appeal…
The decision achieved the delay needed to get Zuma off by other means, and it gave the excuse to remove Mbekli (which was also necessary for the plan, as it turned out).
Please don’t tell me that I am wrong, or that I cannot prove this. It is just a theory – all I ask is for someone to explain why it would not be possble. What would destroy the plausibility of the idea?
The evidence wasn’t leaked to the media. The evidence landed in Zuma’s lap. Coincidentally, Zuma has also been the chief of intelligence for the ANC. That’s just pure coincidence, I’m sure. I mean a private citizen like Zuma has no business gathering intelligence.
Besides, if private citizens like McCarthy and Nguka were at the time, were discussing the merits or timing of Zuma’s case, has it ever occurred to you guys that it would have no effect on Zuma’s case?
None of them had the power to decide to prosecute or not at the time they were allegedly discussing the case. McCarthy was no longer in the DSO and Nguka was no longer NDPP.
Prof: you make a convincing argument on why the law must not be broken in order to show an injustice. It is like shooting a criminal/bugler in your house. This burglar comes into your house, steals your belongings, comes back to Rape your wife and kids. You see him in the process of raping your wife and you have a gun with you. You then phone the police and wait outside in case you break the law by assaulting this guy or shooting him. I am not making a comparison with the Zuma case, what I am saying is look at the Zuma situation and analyse the merits and demerits of the dropping of the charges. Once you start using hypothetical situations in support, you must remember there are many also against you argument.
Do we really know all the contents of the tapes? Do we really know the “volumes of evidence” the NPA has in its possession? I don’t think so. That is what is worrying with the arguments.
In actual fact we do not know much about the case. The Prof has in many instances conceded in many of his postings that the only evidence he feels is strong enough to convict Zuma is the same one that convicted Shaik, and the conclusion by the court that there was a corupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma, vice versa he doesn’t know. We already know that the letter, signed by Zuma, to the then chairman of Parliament’s standing committee on public accounts, Gavin Woods, informing Woods of a presidential decision not to issue the proclamation required for the investigation Woods had sought into the arms deal was not written by Zuma.
Thomas
Firstly Thomas you are allowed to shoot the burglar, its called self defence, the guy is armed breached your security and your family is attacked…….You allowed to kill. its legal.
so i really im not understanding what this has to do with Zuma?
“Once you start using hypothetical situations in support, you must remember there are many also against you argument”
Thats the problem this isnt a hypothetical situation with a hypothetical answer.
Volumes of evidence on Zuma.
1) 93,000 documents seized from his home and his lawyer’s office of soliciting bribes
Newer evidence
2) 13 documents proving corruption “Mauritius Documents” detailed meetings between Zuma and Thint
Newer evidence
3) Tax evasion, a result of his not declaring income from his financial relationship with Schabir Shaik and other unknown parties.
lets do the mass here 93 000+13 =?
and you say thats not a volume of evidence?
see this is not hypothetical evidence we do know alot about this case as this has gained alot of public interest and investigations and media reporting as well as court cases. So the public internationaly and localy are fully aware of the case against Zuma and what the case is about, who he did his business with, who he met and so on
“Do we really know all the contents of the tapes? Do we really know the “volumes of evidence” the NPA has in its possession? I don’t think so. That is what is worrying with the arguments. ”
No we dont know all the contents of the tapes nore does the NPA actually strange that one hey?, what is worrying about the arguments is everyone crying conspiracy based on thin air
If i or anyone else accepts that McCarthy and Ngcuka acted unlawfully and with an ulterior political motive with regards to the timing issue ( the big conspiracy), this is actually not incidental to the decision to recharge Zuma, as it does not have any bearing on the merits of the decision to charge zuma mkay?
Plus it has not caused Zuma any demonstrable prejudice. In order for Zuma to claim his conspiracy theory this is what needs to happen:
A) Entrapment – lured or tricked the accused into committing an offence
B) Fabricating evidence
Infact there is no evidence none whats so ever that the alleged unlawful actions of timing had any tangible impact on the manner in which the prosecution was conducted there is simply none which you all can provide me with.
ozoneblue // Apr 20, 2009 at 6:52 am
you still missing the point which i can see your battling to overcome.
“There is absolutely no evidence that it was “handed over”.
that still doesnt get over your legal obsticle
“In terms of Sections 2 and 49(1) of the Act, no person may intercept, or authorise or procure any other person to intercept any communication except in certain limited circumstances”
Hulley said: “It is information that was given to us by at least two different sources,” he said.
so in other words handed over
Chris Mcdaniel: I hope you have seen this evidence and concluded that it would lead to a conviction.
By the way what is self defence?
By the way Prof read: http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=984281
It seems to me that it is part of the culture of the ANC to be so defensive. Why is it difficult to answer a simple question?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8003000/8003639.stm
http://multimedia.thetimes.co.za/audio/2009/04/duarte-blows-her-top/
Thomas // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Thomas i think your being extremely lazy and abit unfair in this matter. I would suggest read the evidence presented in court by Squires
and the legit search and seizures by the scorpians on obtaining 93000 documents from Zuma which helped put shaiks away. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.
Read the judgements by the Mauritius court its all in the public domain what the evidence are
See what your trying to do is downplay the evidence that already exists that helped put shaiks away. shaiks wasnt alone in this matter bribery is a 2 way street.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
to show you your naivety there are two ways of spelling self-defense or self-defence, if you dont know what self defence is then thats your problem isnt it?
Hey Prof, can we go back to Mr Shaik again?
The HPCSA statement:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=iol1240220174213S214
Either the doctors lied or Mr Balfour lied. This report is very careful to refer to the “gravity” of Mr Shaik’s condition, without actually saying how “grave” it is. And of course they cannot comment on the correctness of the Parole decision.
They say that there are many medical reports that all support the positions taken by the doctors. But we know from one such leaked letter (which is now confirmed to be consistent with the findings presented to the Parole Board), that the conditions for Parole were not met.
It is worth bearing in mind that the heart doctor did not find his condition to be terminal in September last year. The other doctors were a psychiatrist and a GP who worked for the Dept of Correctional Services, and who collated the various medical reports for the Parole Board.
I challenge anyone to come up with a theory about what took place that does not include fraud and unlawfulness in the securing of Mr Shaik’s release.
Thomas // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm
i dont need to conclude anything a judge already did that for me, Squires “overwhelming evidence”
If a judge says overwhelming evidence well what does that tell you? We have to have faith in judges dont we?
Read this, folks.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=983803
Also read the below folks. Seems our president was not informed when the NIA declassified the McCarthy tapes. I find that unacceptable and believe its ominous.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=983378
“My point is that a crime was committed here to let someone off the hook and this is a bad, bad precedent.”
What crime was committed? Does the constitution apply only when it suites you?
PvD
“Or this could be just the tip of the iceberg and the meddling in the Zuma matter may have gone much deeper than we suspect, Fact is, we simply do not know”.
If you do not know, the why are you propagating your views based on speculation? It seems to me that unless we have all the info, we are all just speculating.
The most prudent thing to say Pierre is that based on the info released the decision by the NDPP can not be legally justified. The emphasis should be on getting to the bottom of what was going on at the NPA, not on prosecuting Zuma. Only when we know the extent of the rot, can we justifiably say JZ must go to court.
JJ, the handing over of illegally obtained intelligence to private ciizens is illegal, and yet that was used to get Zuma off the hook. This is a bad precedent – everytime a politician is facing heat they could simply gather some random intelligence illegally and use it selectively and out of context to justify their freedom from prosecution.
Ozone, your argument on McCarthy being “much more than a private citizen” is false – a person’s position does not remove his status as a private citizen…or does it add an extra burden of responsibility? I agree with you to an extent, but you and your fellow ANC supporters have used the private citizen argument to justify why Zuma was involved with Shaik – he was just a private citizen helping out a friend. If you wish to argue that about McCarthy you need to apply the same to Zuma, who is also much more than a private citizen, and should also be held to higher level of accountability that Joe Soap. Or is it one set of rules for Zuma and the ANC and another set for everybody else?
This is a good post I think…again, the overriding issue for me is that we still have half-lies, half-truths, and a whole lot of political bluster clouding the issues. Why can we not hear the tapes in their entirety? Why did Zuma accept R4m from Shaik if not as a bribe? Why do all the investigations into the Arms Deal come back clean, when all the evidence points to the other conclusion? Who else was involved here – Mbeki? What was the level of Thint’s involvement?
This thing will hamstring us for years to come, and Kokkie managed to muddle the waters instead of letting them clear…another great disservice to SA. One day the truth will come out, I just hope it’s not too late by that stage, and I’m alive to see it.
The Big Slipper
“JJ, the handing over of illegally obtained intelligence to private ciizens is illegal, and yet that was used to get Zuma off the hook”.
What intelligence was illegally obtained? By whom, how & when was it obtained? To whom was it handed over? By whom, how & when? Crucially, how did the NDPP get access to it? Was this also illegal? All you are stating are allegations that you deem to be facts. Do you have proof? Does PvD have proof?
Vuyo:
When President Motlanthe says that he is the primary client of the NIA but was not consulted by them when it decided to declassify the top-secret tapes – isn’t that rather a big deal? Shouldn’t he be doing something about this? And has the NIA in fact admitted to declassifying those tapes?
The evidence is there consistently. We don’t even have to read between the lines. We’ve been had, the rural ANC supporters have been had. Since I’m on the ground working in the communities, I’ll be sure to let you know if JZ is for real, walking the talk, et al, if the service and opportunity improves. I pray that it does. I’m tired of all this poverty, degrades my soul.
The Big Slipper // Apr 20, 2009 at 6:22 pm
“JJ, the handing over of illegally obtained intelligence to private ciizens is illegal, and yet that was used to get Zuma off the hook. This is a bad precedent – everytime a politician is facing heat they could simply gather some random intelligence illegally and use it selectively and out of context to justify their freedom from prosecution.”
That is just a typical concoction of lies and assumptions. The NIA has confirmed that the evidence was obtained legally and you have no proof whatsoever of exactly how Zuma’s lawyers obtained the tapes. Every motives and decision of the NPA now being second guessed by the very same hypocrites who have once staunchly and dogmatically defended its independence, and accused people like me of being “conspiracy theorist”.
Still – the deafening silence on the political abuse of the NPA and the Scorpions during the past 10 years is shocking and fill me with disgust. How does judge Heath put it :
“But, addressing the Human Sciences Research Council, a host of pro-Zuma academics and lawyers sprang to Mpshe’s defence.
Speaking at the same gathering at which Seepe launched his attack on Trengove, Judge Willem Heath said the acting NPA head “had no choice” but to withdraw all graft charges against Zuma.
“This was not a political decision… it was a decision in terms of the law,” he told a gathering at the HSRC on Thursday night, adding that no court would be able to overturn Mpshe’s determination.
The judge, who formed part of an ANC task team focused on supporting Zuma in his legal battles, maintained that it would have been “reckless” for Mpshe to continue with Zuma’s prosecution after the surfacing of tape recordings of former prosecuting heads Bulelani Ngcuka and Leonard McCarthy discussing the timing of the Zuma charges.
‘It’s a shame and very disappointing’
The tapes provided evidence that Zuma’s prosecution was irreparably tainted, Judge Heath said. “This decision was not about a technicality… this is not a petty thing.”
The judge also defended Mpshe against criticism of his plagiarism of a Hong Kong judge’s ruling in his explanation of the Zuma decision, saying he was “convinced” the prosecuting boss had not simply “cut and paste” from the judgment.
Judge Heath also slammed the Human Rights Commission, Public Protector and South African legal community for “deafening silence” on the “abuse of power” that led Mpshe to withdraw the charges.”
Prof, what upsets me at times about you is that you are so quick to contradict the principles you are canvassing for! 1. The rule of law forces you to deem Hulley innocent till proven guilty by the court of law, doesnt it Prof? Regardless of how you may feel strongly about his guilt, isnt that nice? If we are to be true democrats, defenders of the Rule of Law, we cant (correctly so, of course) find McCarthy n Ncguka innocent till proven guilty by the court (despite the apparent damning tapes) AND disgustingly, within the same argument, find McCarthy guilty! Pierre please attempt to argue like a real expert asseblief! All I ask is for you to be CONSISTENT, is that too much?
…and find Hulley guilty!…(i meant)
You people may argue as mucg as you like. I just cannot get rid of the fact that one Jacob Zuma was mentioned a number of times in the Shaik judgement. This judgement was uphelp in the CC. So, I do not look forward to JZ as president. And it is this judgement that has made my mind up about him. I will never vote for the ANC for as long as he is president, never, and I will always remember the Shaik judgement whenever he speaks, whenever he smiles, whenever he dances. There is a simple reason for this: I would not be allowed to get away with something like this. So you people may indulge in legal counterfactuals, but I’m afraid my minds made up. The dream is over! Also, he is nowhere near Mr. Mandela, so he does not have my respect either.
[...] has been heated debate about Jacob Zuma in and outside of South [...]
ozoneblue at 10.33 and again at 10.39.
“The NIA has confirmed that the evidence was obtained legally and you have no proof whatsoever of exactly how Zuma’s lawyers obtained the tapes.”
Well, why aren’t we given that proof? What are they hiding? If everything is legal and above board, there should be no reason to refuse to reveal sources or reasons this material was given to them or the full details of how the NIA came to give it to the Zuma team legally.
You quote Judge Heath on the matter. Well, there’s an unbiased and balanced viewpoint. One of Zuma’s team. Why would we expect him to say anything other than what he did? Give us a quote or two from outside the Zuma camp – and the toadies.
“Well, why aren’t we given that proof? What are they hiding? If everything is legal and above board, there should be no reason to refuse to reveal sources or reasons this material was given to them or the full details of how the NIA came to give it to the Zuma team legally”.
Cases are prosecuted in court, not in the media. Why should you be given the info? Are you a judge? The sources will be revealed in court when Ngcuka & McCarthy are charged.
Guys, you are going round in circles. The fact that Mr Hulley has tapes is prima facie evidence of a crime – by definition. It is a fairly small (but serious) crime, but a crime nonetheless.
Clearly somebody gave them to him. He either knows who gave them to him or he doesn’t. If he knows, then that person is either guilty of the crime, or knows who is guilty of the crime (and may be party to the crime).
Now, he has not said that he does not know who handed him the tapes.
He has said that it was NOT Arthur Fraser. Interestingly, he has said that it was not Arthur Fraser who procured the tapes from the NIA. It would be interesting to know how he knows this, or whether he was lying.
By the way, does anybody know what the procedures are for the NIA to declassify material? And if they have declassified some of the tapes, does anybody have the right to obtain copies of these? Also, if they have declassified SOME of the relevant tapes, is there a reason why they can’t declassify others? And who has the right to ask for those?
Mike Atkins @ 6:29 am
Well – my guess is it could be Business Day.
“YCL accuses NIA of abuse of power
Sapa
25 July 2008
Manamela flouts Kasrils and quotes from secret document at press conference
JOHANNESBURG (Sapa) – The National Intelligence Agency has warned against the publication of Young Communist League comments on a document it claims shows the NIA is being abused in a plot against ANC president Jacob Zuma.
The NIA revealed on Thursday that a document which landed on the desk of the YCL was in fact the classified document the Johannesburg High Court has barred the newspaper Business Day from publishing.
YCL national secretary Buti Manamela quoted extensively from the document in a briefing on Thursday on the Progressive Youth Alliance’s plans for the appearance of Zuma in Pietermaritzburg High Court on August 4.
“You are advised not to publish the comments (Manamela) made because of the court order,” said NIA spokeswoman Lorna Daniels.
On Tuesday, the Johannesburg High Court ordered Business Day not to publicise the classified document or any part of it.
It also ordered that no other person was entitled to possession of the document or to publicise its contents without the NIA’s authority and permission.
It was not revealed at Thursday’s briefing that the document was classified or that it was the same document in the possession of Business Day.
A Business Day reporter was not allowed sight of the document at the briefing and could not confirm whether it was the same document referred to in the court application.
“We have established that it is the same document [which was in the possession of Business Day],” said Daniels.
“The court order states that you are not allowed to publish any of the (document),” she said.
In the briefing, Manamela claimed that the information in the document supported its contention that state institutions, including the National Prosecuting Authority and the NIA, were being abused to prevent Zuma from ever becoming president of the country.
On Tuesday, the Johannesburg High Court ordered Business Day to pay the costs of the NIA’s application to block publication of the document.
Welcoming the court’s ruling in favour of the NIA, Intelligence Services Minister Ronnie Kasrils said that although it was important for the public to have access to state information and the right to media freedom, there were clear constitutional and legal requirements concerning classified state information.
“The intention of Business Day to publish classified information is highly unacceptable and unheard of in democracies anywhere in the world,” he said.
“The High Court order clearly shows that there are standards of propriety that must be adhered to.
“The publication of classified information obtained in an unauthorised manner threatens legitimate intelligence operations and undermines national security.”
The editor of Business Day and The Weekender, Peter Bruce, said the NIA could have “saved us all the bother” had it answered the newspaper’s enquiries last Thursday.
“It finally did so in court on Monday. We are satisfied with their answer and that the rights of a particular political party have not been abused, as we initially feared,” he told Sapa.
In court on Monday, Business Day agreed to return the document to the NIA.
Asked in Thursday’s briefing whether President Thabo Mbeki was behind the plot against Zuma, ANC Youth League president Julius Malema said he did not know.
The people conspiring against Zuma were to be found “everywhere”, including business, the media, political parties, the ANC, the opposition and the judiciary.
The alliance claimed the fraud case against Zuma’s former financial adviser Schabir Shaik was part of the plot, as was the complaint against Cape Judge President John Hlophe.
Shaik was found to have made “corrupt payments” to Zuma.
Hlophe had been accused of approaching some of the Constitutional Court’s judges improperly while they were deliberating cases involving Zuma.
“We doubt people will stand back and watch (Zuma) walk into jail for things manufactured [to destroy his public profile],” said Manamela.”
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71627?oid=94883&sn=Detail
So what probably happened here folks is quite simple. Some pro-Zuma individuals aware of the well orchestrated plot against Zuma “leaked” a document (perhaps containing transcripts of the Ngcuka tapes) to Business Day. Kaserils ran to the courts realizing the catastrophic implications for Mbeki, the NIA and the NPA and prohibited the media or anyone else from making these facts public.
When Mbeki was defeated and Kasrils resigned it opened the way for that information to be declassified because it is clearly of immense public interest.
Clara // Apr 20, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Sarah, it’s a major big deal and ought to be addressed. It also raises the issue of Pikoli and the Selebi matter. In my mind, Mbeki’s argument that the arrest be delayed seems to make more and more sense if you consider that all the security apparatus was working against him. To include the police in the mix, in addition to the NIA, elements of the SANDF, would have led to a serious security situation. The NIA and SAPS were clearly united by their opposition to the Scorpions, and are presently allies against the now compliant NPA.
I suggest that you read the article entitled the “Vula boys vs Thabo’s boys” (Noseweek, 2001) which I believe to be very prescient, and to the best of my knowledge, accurate.
ozoneblue // Apr 21, 2009 at 7:31 am
that still doesnt justify that the tapes landed up in Zuma’s lap……its still illegal declassified or not even before the media caught wind of this..thats the law im afriad.
And if its truly declassified Ozoneblue why hasnt the media or the NPA or the NIA released the full transcripts to the public?
Look we need to start agreeing on things now instead of running around in circles
its all B.S. The law has been broken here, either by the NPA or the NIA or both, either way we must start agreeing that these state institutes are victims of the political war that has just happend and its not good.
I have to agree that an invistigation needs to be done to find out why McCarthy was still consulting with Ngcuka if that is the case is Ngcuka allowed to consult on an ad hoc bases? Did they even consult to each other in the first place? This we do not know.
Just because the NIA said its obtained legaly doesnt mean that they were obtained legaly, Ozoneblue you can not take things on face value. Even if the NIA obtained it legaly they still broke the law by supplying it to a 3rd party. The correct cause of action is the NIA giving evidence to the NPA not to a Youth league if that is the case in what you saying above. That still does not justify the tapes following a legal caurse
But the first step that must take place is the full transcripts need to be declassified and released to the media, so we actually know if this has taken place or not? I still find it strange that Ngcuka was not called to the meeting when the NPA and Zuma were discussing about this so called Conspiracy? or that they havnt even been given the full transcripts yet? com on there’s something dodgy here
Right now there is no conspiracy and ive highlighted it in this post before.
And I still find it strange that the NPA was not given the transcripts by the NIA but from Zuma’s team instead….That alone is problomatic. The NIA has a duty to hand these materials directly to the NPA not via 3rd parties that is illegal.
We can also start to agree that Mpshe judgement was political and self serving, he just did not have the stomach for this and found an easy why out. This im afriad is also against NPA policies.
So were I stand the NPA acted illegaly and the NIA. can we agree?
ozoneblue,
And your point is…
A lot of people seem to view the world only through the prism of Zuma vs Mbeki. And if you are against Zuma, you must be for Mbeki, and hence you condone anything dopne by Mbeki, or his camp or his supporters.
Garbage.In one sense I couldn’t care less what factions within the ANC do to each other. Yes, when they abuse state resources and break the law, I protest. But this seems to have been S.O.P. for the ANC as a whole.
But let’s also get things in perspective. For the President of the country to be corrupt, or corruptible, is nearly the most serious problem that a country can have. initially, it might not show on the surface, but the long-term consequences are catastrophic.
But now we have had the application of some form of pressure or inducement to the NDPP (whose position and duties are important enough to be described in the Constitution, to act in breach of the Constitution. (if you dispute this assertion, I can explain how one deduces it).
Thus, a deliberate act, designed to favour the likely President, has overridden some important protections and safeguards in the Constitution. And all done with a patina of legality, but actually in a way that cannot be anything else but unlawful.
And if a few areas of the Constitution can be so easily overridden in order to allow somebody (and his supporting clique) to enjoy the fruits of power,what other provisions of our Constitution will also be overridden? What is safe?
ozoneblue // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:39 pm
“Still – the deafening silence on the political abuse of the NPA and the Scorpions during the past 10 years is shocking and fill me with disgust. ”
This shows me your throwing your toys out the cot again.
The high court found the search and seizures of 93000 documents by the scorpians where legal.
Listen you need to get all your facts straight the scorpians did more good than harm and most of the times the scorpians acted with in the law.
OZONEBLUE, WHY STILL ARGUE WITH THE BITTER PEOPLE. ZUMA WILL BE PRESIDENT AND THE MAJORITY IS HAPPY AND THE ERSTWHILE “MAJORITY” OF TRICAMERAL PARLIAMENT IS UNDERSTANDABLY UPSET!
@ ozoneblue&mdu
you1re right there is no need to argue with the facts the NPA was a successful outfit ..Mphse has giving into the pressure from his Party.
Mike asks “And if a few areas of the Constitution can be so easily overridden in order to allow somebody (and his supporting clique) to enjoy the fruits of power,what other provisions of our Constitution will also be overridden? What is safe?”
this has not been answered
we will continue to voice our opinions Mdu whether in praise or criticism …i still await your response are we safe with a JZ admininstration?
Mdu @ 10:01 am
It is not so much “arguing” than robust debate as one would expect in a democracy.
It is important that distorted views that will harm South Africa’s image be refuted : alarmist rhetoric with very little foundation in fact such as “South Africa is descending into a state of lawlessness” or that the ANC wants to discard the constitution – coming from renown “constitutional experts” with a prominent media profile is counter-productive to foreign investment.
ozoneblue, (gee, you take a lot of flak from some of us)
Your point about the “alarmist rhetoric” is the classic straw-man argument.
Nobody is arguing that everying will fall apart overnight, that the Constitution will be suspended and Adolf Hitler the 2nd will take over, never to have another election again.
The process is a little more subtle than that, but actually the principles are not so very different.
Once the people holding the reins of power have “tasted” the process of overriding, undermining, bypassing or ignoring constitutional safeguards and checks and balances, then it is unlikely that this taste will go away (like the lion that has become a man-eater).
The law will be observed for as long as those in power (whom I call the “Zuma clique”, as opposed to the whole ANC) are not threatened – either by prosecution, or by removal from office.
I do not believe (at this point, anyway) that Mr Zuma will attempt to be President for three or more terms. He will be happy to retire with the benefits of office (however extensive tha may prove to be). But his clique will not be willing to relinquish power (Cabinet Ministers can serve more than two terms).
And so we will have a nice happy country – providing that there is no resistance to those in power.
Sorry, but then the Constitution will be dead, just as surely as if it was suspended.
Logically speaking, there is a case to be made that we are already Zimbabwe. The question is how acquiesent the population will be, for how long, and what those in power will be willing to do to remain in power.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
– Bertrand Russell
Mike Atkins @ 12:37 pm
“Logically speaking, there is a case to be made that we are already Zimbabwe.”
So perhaps you and the opposition should start pleading for sanctions – see if you can collapse the South African economy ?
ozoneblue // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“So perhaps you and the opposition should start pleading for sanctions – see if you can collapse the South African economy ?”
Perhaps a new Groot Trek – North to the Congo – Brassaville (there is so much talk about that nowadays) – would in fact be better? Then the Congo’s economy can grow and SA’s collapse. Then the power of Africa will be where it should be – right in the centre.
“Once the people holding the reins of power have “tasted” the process of overriding, undermining, bypassing or ignoring constitutional safeguards and checks and balances, then it is unlikely that this taste will go away (like the lion that has become a man-eater)”.
“Logically speaking, there is a case to be made that we are already Zimbabwe. The question is how acquiesent the population will be, for how long, and what those in power will be willing to do to remain in power”.
Boet, you are sick. Your head is full of Zille’s propoganda and/or a racist distrust for black people. Unfortunately JZ cann’t make himself white. If you really believe SA is Zim, why don’t you go live there?
“Perhaps a new Groot Trek – North to the Congo – Brassaville (there is so much talk about that nowadays) – would in fact be better? Then the Congo’s economy can grow and SA’s collapse. Then the power of Africa will be where it should be – right in the centre”.
Do you really believe the rubbish you are writing? Does China need white people to develop? Did Saudi Arabia need white people to develop? White South Africans think they are God’s gift to SA. We don’t need you. You can stay if you believe in the country & its your home but if you think you are doing us a favour- leave!
“So we will have a nice happy country – providing there is no resistance to those in power.”
Resistance, Mike? Perish the thought! All we want is a quiet life. Let’s just keep our heads down, and then everything will be oojah-cum-spiff. This, too, shall pass.
jj,
You do not know me.
What evidence do you have that I am a racist? Is it because I criticise a black man? (think about the logic of this for a moment…)
Instead of calling me a racist, perhaps first show me something that I have said that is unreasonable, and why. Then, if I have no reasonable basis for my opinions, I will agree that I am saying things that flow from my prejudice.
But if you ASSUME that I act in a certain way because I am white, are you also not making assumptions on the basis of race?
For your infrmation, I have never voted DA, and I have reached my conclusions all on my own, on the basis of the information available to me.
As to what i said in that last post, I was following a train of thought, taking things to their logical conclusion. By all means, disagree and point out why I am wrong. I know that i was being a little provocative, but it was to try an stimulate debate.
One characteristic of Zimbabwe under Mr Mugabe was that he used “legal” means to do what he wanted. But if that did not work, he resorted to unlawful means, but always tried to keep the appearance of legality.
My thesis is that we have been starting to see this here – both from the Mbeki-types, and from the Zuma-types.
And the leader of the party I will vote for is a black man.
Anonymouse – Congo-Brazzaville sounds nice, doesn’t it? Such lovely people, offering us all that land. Wonder if they also take non-farmers? I’ve decided to stay here, though, right to the bitter end, just to spite jj.
I cann’t find any logic in what you are saying. Mugabe was always a tyrant. Ask the Ndebeles he butchered in 1984. JZ might prove to be like him, we don’t know.
Zuma has not even acquired the power you claim he will abuse. If you were saying to me, TM had tendencies like mad Bob, I could agree with you since he had the instruments of power to abuse. To accuse a presidential candidate of abusing presidential power before they are even elected, is bizarre.
The only reason I can find for linking Zuma & Mugabe is that they are both black. That’s why I called you a racist..
jj,
Believe me, I am as “worried” about democracy in Europe as I am here. The EU has assumed all sorts of creping powers tha have been implemented by beaurocrats. The EU Constitution was rejected by voters, and so it was relabelled (the Lisbon Treay) and then passed by parliaments instead of referendums. The Labour Party in the UK promised a referendum and then did not have one. ireland voted No, and have been asked to vote again. I could go on….
The point is the abuse of power It is as wrong in every place it happens, and my distress is not related to black people in particular.
I am not singling out Mr Zuma, but I am concerned about his “camp” and those who see him as a route to power. What I was describing include the things done in his name.
The NIA tapes were leaked (I concede that it could be just a disgruntled indivdual – like the many leaks we saw from the NPA itself). The NIA conveniently agreed to declassify the relevant tapes to allow the NPA to get off the hok of using unlawfully obtained material. The ANC knew how the decision of the NPA would go.
Mpshe did not have a lawful reason to drop the charges. He took the role of a judge (remember the separation of powers). He did not adhere to his own Policy. That means he had a reason other than those he disclosed.
If he had an undeclared reason, then somebody got to him. He did not arrive at this all by himself because he had ample opportunity previously to let Zuma off the hook. He charged Zuma,a nd he appealed Nicholson.
If someone got to him, then the Constitution has been overridden in the name of JZ
It is also interesting how much Mr Zuma has been treated as though he is the President while he has been “merely” a private citizen. He has motorcades, with flashing lights even though he has had no government business (his security has cost R1 million per month – ask how much is spent on Mr Mandela, Mr de Klerk, Mr Mbeki and Ms Mlambo-Ngcuka combned)
And with the whole Shaik saga, there is one little detail of note. Three days before Shaik’s release, Mr Zuma told The Weekender that he had discussed the Shaik matter with members of the Department of Correctional Services. He said that Shaik was so ill that he ought to have ben let out a long time ago. What business did they have discussing themedical condition of a prisoner with a private citizen like that?
By the way, i appreciated your second post much more than the first. I might try and “prove my case”, andrebut your arguments, but i respect the logic of what you are saying. We cab differ, but still engage and have some understanding of one another And respect.
I can honestly say that I am not engaging the law as a “convenient” weapon to use against a person who is “black”. I sincerely do not hate Mr Zuma. I do hate what is done in his name. i would say more that I fear for him, and for what he might become if he is sucked into the vortex of power without legal and ethical constraints. He thinks that he can ride this “tiger”. I happen to believe that one day he will stand before his Maker, and will answer (as well all will) for what he has said ad done
I also think that the DA made a terrible blunder with their “Stop Zuma” posters. i nearly voted for them on the basis of their court action, and still support a broad initiative to stand with them on this. But I think that it is a wrong message to attack the person, rather than the actions.
There are still so many divides, and we need to engage and undestand each other across the barriers.
JJ, you are very well equipped to mount an intelligent defense of ruling party in this forum. (As you will have noticed by now, the very few contributors who do attempt to speak for the ANC on this blog do it little credit.)
I find it regrettable that instead of seriously participating in debate, you have so far chosen to indulge in agitprop. I really hope that, after the election, you will take the time to seriously engage the hard questions raised by Pierre and others.
Or do you not think there is still a chance you can win back the chattering classes, who once loved the Party, with rational argument? (Did you see Gevisser’s astonishing claim in the the CT today that he knows not one person “in his world” that will easily vote for the party of JZ?) Have you written us off as, at worst, unreconstructed racists, or, at best, ideological captives of the other side?
Michael Osborne @ 11:34 pm
I say fuck the “chattering classes”. Let them move to Switzerland because apparently South Africa is now like Zimbabwe.
Ozone–
Don’t go cutting off your nose to spite your face. You don’t want a self fulfilling prophecy here, do you?
For all of their problems, their insufferable smugness, arrogance, etc. (no need to list all of the shortcomings of this group–they are well known!), the “chattering classes” sadly do wield significant influence. While they singlehandedly wouldn’t be able to turn SA into Zimbabwe, it would be a lot easier to keep SA from becoming a Zimbabwe with their goodwill and support. And SA has had that goodwill and support for the past 15 years, and it has been extremely valuable and beneficial.
Mugabe was not always a tyrant–and he had, at one time, the support of the “chattering classes”, and they were extremely useful in reconstructing Zimbabwe after the civil war.
Ozoneblue reasons:
“I say fuck the “chattering classes”. Let them move to Switzerland because apparently South Africa is now like Zimbabwe.”
Ozoneblue, thank you very much for this insightful argument.
Actually, getting into Switzerland is harder than getting into Mordor. One does not simply telnet into Switzerland.
But that attitude accurately portrays the ANC’s attitude too.
JJ and Ozoneblue Mpshe said that he received information of the tapes from the submissions made by Mr Zuma. This means someone must have handed the tapes over to Zuma or his lawyer. It is a criminal offense – even when the tapes were made legally – to hand over such tapes to a private citizen and to receive them. So unless you are saying Mpshe is lying, this is not conjecture as you suggest. I really do not understand your point. You seem to confuse the legality of making the tapes and the legality of handing it over to a private party. The former might sometimes be legal (as NIA claims here). The latter not. Even legally obtained recordings can never be handed over – it is a crime. Surely not too difficult to understand?
Spuy, please read the post again. I do not “find Hulley guilty”. I describe an argument by pro-Zuma supporters which I did not endorse in any way. The fact that you seem to think I did, says more about your ability to pass a comprehension test than about my consistency.
Pierre De Vos // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:55 am
“This means someone must have handed the tapes over to Zuma or his lawyer. It is a criminal offense – even when the tapes were made legally – to hand over such tapes to a private citizen and to receive them.”
No – it is not only about “tapes”, any classified information as a matter of fact. Are you saying Business Day should have been in the dock then : do they not count as “private individual” or are you saying that it is legal to hand over classified information to “the media”. How preposterous is that ? How about the classified documents handed over by the NPA to the M&G and other newspapers during the Browse-Mole saga ? Why did you not complain about this issue back then but instead insisted that Pikoli did not breach national security ?
Ozonblue,. You seem to be confused. This is NOT about classified information. It is about eavesdropping on citizens dealt with in terms of the Rico Act. Such tapes are not “classified” in terms of national security. It is illegal because it infringes on right to privacy. In one situation the rights of citizens are infringed. In the other, information are restricted because alleged “national security concerns”. In any case, any evidence that Pikoli or anyone else leaked classified information? If so, what law was breached? Just curious.
jj – “Do you really believe the rubbish you are writing? Does China need white people to develop? Did Saudi Arabia need white people to develop? White South Africans think they are God’s gift to SA. We don’t need you. You can stay if you believe in the country & its your home but if you think you are doing us a favour- leave!”
Just because I used the term “Groot Trek” and drew a parallel to farmers that are currently being invited to emigrate toi Congo-Brazzaville you appear to assume that I (and the farmers so invited) am (are) ‘white’ and, therefore, ‘racist’ (apparently black people cannot be trekkers(where do you think all SA’s black peoples came from??!)/farmers/racists?). Mine was actually a satirical response to O3Blue’s suggestion that “you (Mike Atkins) and the opposition” (again apparently assuming that he and the opposition should be ‘white’)should start calling for sanctions to see whether they would be able to collapse SA’s economy, just like (accodring to this insight of O3Blue) the opposition to Bob Mugabe (who are definitely not all white – but the majority is black) did with Zimbabwe’s economy. This clearly shows O3Blue’s (and your) lack of understanding of situatios like the current – it is not the opposition’s call for sanctions that collapsed Zim’s economy, but Bob’s tyranny – all those Bullion-chips, Dollars, Euros and Pounds that he has accumulated in Swiss banks and elsewhere to the detriment of his own ‘beloved’ country! – that achieved that goal, and sanctions against the Big Man Mugabe were, unfortunately, ineffective to topple him. The sanctions against apartheid RSA never succeeded in ‘collapsing’ SA’s economy – neither did the so-called ‘struggle’ win democracy for the SA people. What did win democracy for the people was the renaissance idea of ‘rule of law’ and ‘human rights’ that eventually caught the imagination of all people (black and white), even the Nats under FW the Clerk. The ANC (and a few other so-called ‘struggle-comrades’) merely piggy-backed on this idea by saying: “We have won the struggle!”, which they haven’t really. But then, unfortunately the masses of people in RSA were (and some still are) largely uneducated (no doubt as a result of apartheid – which I never supported) believed them. But that is now changing and, even though the ANC might still just attain a two-third majority this time around, the ‘educated’ youth understands more and more that voting is a RIGHT, that is SECRET, and, if the government of the day does not deliver, it can be held ACCOUNTABLE through the ballot, no matter that it did (or so they say) win you the right to vote.
Nevertheless, as far as your questions are concerned: With more than a third of the Globe’s population, China definitely does not need white people to become powerful economically – however it did need the idea of capitalism to, to an extent, light the fuse to growth. Saudi-Arabia also did not need white people with more than half the Globe’s oil-reserves through which they control almost every other country’s economy and politics. … But, my suggestion above was not directed to people wanting to move to the East or the Mid-East, or even to Argentina and Brazil as happened in the case of those who did not want to support ‘Great’ Britain during the British Colonization (after the ‘Groot Trek’), but to people who believe in themselves as AFRICANS in the true sense of the word, and in their abilities to make a difference, economically, politically and socially FOR THE PEOPLE OF AFRICA (no matter what their colour, race or creed), and for their children, which is something that the current (and for the next five years) government of RSA is not striving for.
However, like Clara above (thanks Clara!), I will stay, because this is my land, and my people. This is the land of my forefathers (and -mothers) and children – and here I will continue to stay and make a difference FOR THE PEOPLE, no matter who wins this election, and the next, and the next, and the next, …
Stop being so ‘fyngevoelig’ when you read opposing political views – and at least try to make a positive difference.
JJ asked (rhetorically):
“Does China need white people to develop? Did Saudi Arabia need white people to develop? “
Bad examples, JJ.
China’s industrialisation in the early part of the 20th Century sprang directly from colonisation by European powers (and, of course, the Japanese). And Mao’s “Great Leaps” in the 50′s and 60′ owed a great deal to imported of Russian industrial plant. Until at least recently, China built its technological base by filching western intellectual property.
As for Saudi Arabia, the technology and capital that gave rise to petroleum production were both western imports. Who know, maybe the sheiks would eventually have prospected the oil beneath the sands without massive external inputs. But it would probably have taken a lot longer.
.
Michael – Shame on you for implying that the ‘help’ to the East and the Mid-East (in jj’s examples) came from ‘white’ people! Aren’t we all ‘Children of Abraham’? … Couldn’t resist this response – but I love your insight. By the way, do you know that ‘Mao’ is the noise that a cat makes, and that Mao was born in the Year of the Cat, and that that is where he got his name from? Quite a ‘fat cat’ he made – that’s fo sho.
Has anybody stopped to consider that maybe McCarthy taped his own conversations and to butter his bread gave his tapes to Zuma for future favours?
Anonymouse: one of the main reasons why I like to visit this bog are your comments. Fo’ sho’!
To all those of you who take such great exception to being called racists, I’d like to say that this should be like water off a duck’s back. (Ducks, by the way, are the cutest things this planet has ever seen.) People who call other people racists have either run out of intelligent arguments, or they get a kick out of the reactions.
Clara – “Free Minutes to use ‘Whenevaaah’! – Shuo!” … I always aim to please … weell, nearly always.
Pierre De Vos // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:28 am
Pierre you are starting to go around in circles again. When you make wild statements like Zuma’s lawyer/NIA “broke the law” please give as a link or at the very least a reference to the applicable legislation – the onus is on YOU to prove your point.
All the articles in the media was about “classified information” – what you are saying now it is dependent on why the information was classified i.e. the “right to individual privacy” versus “national security”. Well – I don’t believe that and I think your being less than honest.
Surely if it was about only about the “right to privacy” what was the media then doing publishing intimate details about Jacob Zuma’s bank account : again leaked via the NPA ?
Ozoneblue, have already done so in the past. See post on the relevant sections of Rico Act. As you are not one of my students I cannot take the time to repeat myself. Concentrate comrade!
Pierre De Vos @ 10:37 pm
I see.
Don’t bother to provide a link then. I would love to read any of your students papers though : under the references section – “STFW” or “F..off I gave references last year” or “the prof. said so”
Ozoneblue, if a student demanded that I repeat a lecture because she missed it because she was playing Klawerjas in the student Union or drinking beer in The Barn, I will not oblige. I can’t take responsibility for other people’s laziness.
Pierre De Vos @ 7:18 am
So I must assume you were bullshitting then ?
Since your blog lacks a search button, after plenty of google searches I find no information whatsoever on how the RICO Act is applicable in law to South Africa – never mind how it relates to state owned classified information.
Please clarify – kindly have patience with me and see me as another one of your dumb students.
Ozoneblue, there is a search facility above the picture of the Constitutional Court on the top right hand of the Blog.
lol pierre i can see your frustration.
Its like a 5 yr old arguing with someone from NASA that you cant send rockets into space no way no how its impossible, is the best way i can describe the frustration you seem to have with ozonehole.
But i must admit i do find it rather amuzing he cant even find it on google.
Ozone type in RICO ACT, not Rico Coffee if you really having problems with this to spell it out for you R.I.C.O
stands for Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organisation
and please look up
Interception & Monitoring Act
man thanks guys this made me laugh today
ok I have found the useless search button now – lets see nothing comes up when I type the word “RICO” – ?
[...] Double standard or respect for the Rule of Law? Share and Enjoy: [...]
Well I am not surprise by a negative bandwagon reaction from the White media, analysts and commentators who seem so hellbent on destroying the man not because he is evil but simply because of this deep-seated hatred that white people have of black people. When Zuma was making allegations that there his case was political motivated there was screams from almost all corners saying he must provide the evidence. The question is how will Zuma have provided such evidence when he is not in the position to access it? Luckily some messiah within the stated institution entrusted will the custody of this information came to the rescue and provided such information.
Having been “caught with their pants down” when the evidence of meddling was provided the same seekers of evidence all off a sudden changed tune by all of a suddenly turning their attention away from the evidence they so sought from the man to how the evidence was acquired….. Which tells you one thing; there is lots of double standards in the white controlled media. How was Zuma suppose to provide evidence of political conspirary? Do people invite you in their little private forums/meetings when they conspire to do evil against you? No. How was Zuma suppose to have access to that information then without someone spying on them?
[...] “Double Standard or respect for the rule of law?” (Constitutionally Speaking blog) http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=974 [...]
[...] “Double Standard or respect for the rule of law?” (Constitutionally Speaking blog) [...]