Mr Jacob Zuma has not been found guilty of any crime and has a constitutional right to be presumed by our courts to be innocent until proven guilty by the state beyond reasonable doubt. We must never forget that and must respect our courts to come to a conclusion about Mr Zuma’s guilt or innocence after the state has had the opportunity to present all the relevant evidence to that court.
There is, however, a difference between the question of whether Mr Zuma is guilty of corruption in terms of the Corruption Act on the one hand, and the question of whether Mr Zuma is the best person to lead South Africa after the next election, on the other. The first is a criminal matter, requiring an extraordinary burden of proof. The latter is a political, ethical and moral matter requiring wisdom, a moral compas and common sense.
As an accused person (or a person who might again soon be an accused) Mr Zuma has every right to use the vast resources at his disposal (paid by us, the taxpayers) to try and prevent the state from getting to that point where it can put before a court the evidence it believes can secure a conviction against him.
In that regard, he is in an enviable position as he can pay extremely good lawyers millions of Rands to fight the state tooth and nail to prevent them from ever getting that opportunity. An ordinary accused person would long since have been tried and either acquitted or convicted because such a person would not have been able to pay such vast sums of money to lawyers to challenge the state on every technical point imaginable. But that is Mr Zuma’s right and I do not begrudge him that luxury that comes with being a rich and influential man.
As a politician, this course of action should, however, not be without consequences – given the fact that another man (Schabir Shaik) has been sentenced to a 15 year jail term for corrupting Zuma and soliciting a bribe on his behalf from an arms company. That conviction has placed a huge question mark over Mr Zuma’s fitness to hold public office – let alone his fitness to be President of South Africa. That is why I believe it was untenable and inexplicable – as judge Nicholson has pointed out in his recent judgment – that Mr Zuma was initially not charged alongside Shaik.
The initial decision by Bulelani Ngcuka to announce that there was a prima facie case against Zuma but that he would not be charged constitutes a grave dereliction of duty on the part of Ngcuka and created the perception that he was not making decisions about who to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice – as he was constitutionally required to do. It was only after Ngcuka was replaced by Vusi Pikoli and Shaik was convicted that the NPA decided to do the right thing by charging Zuma, thus allowing him to face the same charges on which Shaik was convicted.
In the absence of an acquittal by a competent court of law, the question of whether Mr Zuma is a corrupt man will linger on as only a court (and not the ANC NEC or anyone else) can clear Mr Zuma’s name. The sooner he faces these charges and is either convicted or acquitted the better for Zuma and the better for South Africa.
If I was Mr Zuma and if I was innocent, I would be begging the NPA to charge me so that I could clear my name once and for all. This is because no less than three different courts have made very serious legal and factual findings that suggested Mr Zuma is unfit for public office. Of these, the most important judgment is probably that of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in the case of Shaik and Others v The State.
First, the SCA found that “[i]t is not in dispute that Shaik gave benefits which were not legally due to Zuma at the time that Zuma held public office, being initially that of MEC for Economic Affairs and Tourism in KwaZulu-Natal and later Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa (par 65)” and then concluded that:
In our view the State successfully proved that Shaik or one or more of the appellant companies made payments to or on behalf of Zuma in the total amount of R1 249 244.91 over the period 1 October 1995 and 30 September 2002 (par 84).
Why did Shaik make these payments? Well, the SCA found in this regard as follows:
Plainly, Shaik did not simply direct relevant correspondence to the appropriate quarters as a sort of go-between. He obtained Zuma’s intervention in order to advance Nkobi’s business (par 123) … On a conspectus of all the evidence there is, in our view, only one reasonable inference to be drawn. It is that, in making the payments in issue (whether as inducement or reward), Shaik intended to influence Zuma, in furtherance of the business interests of Shaik and his companies, to act in conflict with the duties imposed upon Zuma by the terms of sections 96(2) and 136(2) of the Constitution (par 131).
This means that the SCA has confirmed that money was given by Shaik to Zuma to get Zuma to try and use his influence as a politician to further Mr Shaik’s business interest. The SCA also found clear evidence that Mr Zuma had obliged in this regard. Although the SCA was careful not to make any finding as to whether Mr Zuma had the intention of receiving this money and doing the favours for corrupt purposes as defined by the Act, it did find that Zuma was involved in a serious way in the corruption for which Shaik was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Most politicians in a democracy would not have survive such a factual (not a legal) finding by a court. The fact that Mr Zuma has so far done so, says much about Mr Zuma’s political skills in getting South Africans to forget about these inconvenient factual findings.
On the third count of corruption on which Mr Shaik was convicted, the SCA found that an encrypted fax setting out the terms of the bribe to be paid to Zuma by Thint was genuine and admissible as evidence in the Shaik case. In doing so, it indirectly implicated Mr Zuma in the soliciting of a bribe from an arms company.
The fax, the correspondence, Shaik’s false evidence, the service provider agreement and the payment in terms thereof cumulatively, in our view, fully justified the finding of the court below that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that what Shaik described as a request for a donation to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust was in fact a request for the payment of a bribe to Zuma. As was found by the court below the service provider agreement was in reality nothing more than a vehicle to give effect to the request recorded in the encrypted fax and to disguise the fact that the amount of R249 925, paid in terms of the service provider agreement, was intended to be a bribe (par 203).
Mr Zuma chose not to testify at his erstwhile friend’s trial, which was probably a wise legal move, given the fact that he is still potentailly facing charges about the same bribe. But politically, it does leave many very, very awkward questions for Mr Zuma to answer, including questions about his role in the soliciting of the bribe. These questions are made even more awkward by the fact that Zuma did meet representatives of the arms company from whom the bribe was solicited and then misled Parliament about this meeting by giving the impression (while leaving room to wiggle out of the misleading statement) that he never met with the arms company representative at all.
It is also interesting to note what the SCA further had to say about this fax and the bribe that was solicited on behalf of Zuma:
In terms of the fax Zuma confirmed Shaik’s request in a code devised by Thétard and evidently explained to Zuma by Shaik. The appellants submitted in the court below that Shaik could have misrepresented the meaning of the code to Zuma; that there is consequently a reasonable possibility that Zuma did not know of the bribe and did not agree to the bribe; and that in order to succeed the state had to prove that Zuma knew of the request and agreed to accept the bribe. The court below rejected this argument on the ground that Shaik testified that Zuma knew what was being discussed; that Shaik would not have misrepresented the position as there was a risk that his deception would subsequently be revealed; and that it was unlikely that a dishonest broker would arrange a meeting between the two parties that he was deceiving (par 204).
This passage reminds us that the High Court had found that Zuma must have known about the soliciting of the bribe. The SCA did not find it necessary to make a finding on this point, but politically this places a very serious question mark over Mr Zuma’s honesty and integrity as a court has found that he knew about the soliciting of a bribe on his behalf.
The only way for Mr Zuma to clear his name is to meet the evidence presented by the NPA in court. However, he has chosen (as is his legal right) to try and avoid his day in court by all means necessary – including by bringing applications to challenge the legality of the decision to charge him. He has also tried everything to prevent the state from building a case against him by trying to prevent the NPA from procuring evidence about his meeting with the arms representatives from Mauritius. He also tried to prevent the NPA from making use of evidence secured in raids on his own premises and the premises of his lawyer in any possible trial. He failed on both the latter counts.
Mr Zuma was treated in a tardy fashion by the NPA when they decided to charge Shaik and not him. Although no court has found that his right to dignity or a fair trial has been infringed, several courts have made factual findings suggesting that he does have a prima facie case of corruption to answer. Legally, his best option is therefore to try and prevent a trial from taking place at all.
But politically the question does arise whether one would want to vote for a President against whom a prima facie case of corruption exists. The only way for Mr Zuma to wiggle out of this very difficult situation is to argue that he is being charged unfairly for political reasons. Others have also been involved in corruption and have not been charged, so the argument goes, so it is unfair for him alone to face the music. This is exactly what Mr Zuma and his supporters have done rather successfully over the past few years.
A few questions arise from all of this: should we as a nation forgive Mr Zuma for his indiscretions (which might or might not amount to criminal conduct carrying a 15 year mandatory sentence) because he might have been singled out for prosecution and if we do, what would that say about our collective morality? Should we not rather insist that an independent and impartial NPA vigorously pursue those other cases of corruption alluded to by Mr Zuma and others? Mr Zuma has said if he is charged he will reveal “the truth” about the arms deal, so should the NPA perhaps enter into a plea bargain with Mr Zuma in exchange for his co-operation to catch the bigger fish? And who are these bigger fish? Should we vote for a President who says he has evidence of corruption which he will reveal only if he is prosecuted? Will such a President uphold the law and could he be trusted?
I suspect how we answer these questions will say much about our own ethical commitments and our vision of what kind of country we wish South Africa to be. I fear, though, that I might not like the answers given by many of my fellow South Africans. That may be the tragedy we are living through now.
It cannot be any clearer than this. Thanks Prof.
Of course this eloquence may elicit ‘eggs and tomatoes with no substance’ from those who would bury their faces in the sand and wish that we see it differently.
We love our country so much that we will always warn against the dangers of putting a man who is clearly unfit to be President of an important country not only in Africa, but in the world as well.
You have consistently asserted you strong view that the lingering of unanswered questions about the implication of Zuma is the fraud spectacle is a moral basis for his qualification to be President of RSA.
You are perfectly entitled to this position, Prof but that does not detract from the fact that Zuma has never been found guilty of any criminal office on the charges and thus not precluded in law to participate in any political activities. Whose morality do you preach.
I do not subscribe to the morality which says if there are questions then you cannot lead. Anyway, isn’t that moral questions can be resolved through the ballot since no legal action can be invoked on the basis of your strong moral stance?
The moral action you can take is to vote any other person other than Zuma. You have an unfettered legal and moral right to do so.
Anyway, the Supreme Court of Appeal is itching to overturn the decision of Nicholson so is the perspective of some of the Contributors. There are still many days to have this matter thrashed out by the Courts. Harms is leading the legal demolition team. You do not have to worry.
You and I must know that inferences which the court arrive at are not always truthful they are value judgments premised on admitted evidence.
In your earlier post, you asked questions including that he had sex with a lady half his age. That is not illegal or immoral. Our society does not prohibit sex between consenting adults, I know less of your cultural spectacles but our african culture does not prescribe the age range for sex amongst adults. You seemed concerned about the issue of polygamous status of Zuma and the sexual encounter with the the famous X. That is certainly not illegal . Everyday in South Africa, including between intervals between your classes a lot of sex occurs with or without condoms.
It the stark reality of our situation and wonder if this experience is inimical to our moral convictions, especially when this a widely practiced norm that society is unable to curb the surge of sexually transmitted diseases the world over.
Zuma did not give evidence in English but Zulu and certainly never said a shower heals or prevents contraction of HIV. He testified having taken a shower immediately after sex. it is what most of us do. It is a pure hygienic step to take. One does not have to smell of sweaty sexual fluids as a mantle of sexual encounter.
If Zuma believed that the shower will contribute to prevention of viruses on his body, does that disqualify him to be President? I think not. He does not have to share my views or yours for him to be a politician or participate in electoral activities in South Africa.
If our votes are determined on moralistic considerations, then your prediction is that Zuma will loose based on the moral compass of our society or the majority has suddenly become immoral as to be condemned by you, the great moralist of our time.
I do not share all the views expressed by Zuma but accept and embrace the sanctity of thought. It is the only way we could build a strong democratic society. All the parties must enter the ring of unremitting polemical discourse no matter how outrageous one could regard their contribution.
The SCA has not asserted that Zuma has certainly knowingly accepted a bribe from Shaik. This is yet to be proven and he remains unquilt until proven otherwise. Lingering cloud bases on the allegations is not a basis to disentitle him of participating in political activities of the Republic.
It is a matter of personal choice if one must willingly submit himself to prosecution even when he believes that the charges are politically motivated to seek the intervention of courts to protect his fundamental constitutional rights. This a legal right !; not a political priviledge.
The judges including legal scholars are at each other throats on this simple matter of whether the trial of Zuma is politically motivated or otherwise. This is a fuss.
As a legal scholar you must enrich the debate and we must contest your ideas. No single man has the monopoly of wisdom !, some may be not intellectually sophisticated but that does not make then any less a citizen.
Prof, the beginning of that was quite familiar. I was starting to think you’re too busy marking. I must say that as much as you have said this all before and he=ave received much support it seems you must repeat yourself for those who just don’t get it. I quite agree with you and am glad you expanded on your logical reasons for this. As much as I respect other opinions I’m not going to be impressed by blind defence of Zuma. A plea bargain is not the way to go. It’d send the wrong message. It would suggest that the NPA hasn’t a strong enough case. It would also suggest that in SA one can get away with crimes if one is sitably well-connected and has enough money. That is NOT a justice system that shows equal tretment to all. In fact, Zuma has had a wonderful deal comapred to all and sundry whou would not have the lawyers that would debate each and every single stage of the procedure.Procedural fairness is important but it seems Zuma has abused such rights, luckily he has developed our law in that regard and many will benefit hereafter.
Let the man have his day in court to prove his innocence, unless that won’t work out.
Ishmael, you are correct that Zuma is not LEGALLY prohibited from taking part in politics, but my point is exactly that the requirement of a criminal conviction is too low a bar to set for public representatives in a democracy – especially President of the country. If your contention would be agreed upon it would mean Magnus Malan, Wouter Basson, PW Botha, Corne Mulder, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the students from Reitz residence who made the racist video, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, or Sister Tina Maas could all be considered Presidential material. They have a RIGHT to stand for election because they have not been convicted of any crime (well, PW is now dead, which might also make a political campaign a bit difficult), but I would want to argue quite strenuously that they should not be our President, based on ethical/moral considerations. In essence all choices for political leaders are moral choices and reflect the kind of public morality of our society and we cannot escape that. This is not a formalistic argument but a substantive one. I want to talk about the ethical/moral qualities for a leader in our democracy and wish others would engage with this argument and to acknowledge that electing ethically tainted individuals such as Zuma would be bad for our political system because if it is ok for a person who has such a cloud over his head becoming President then we are really saying it is ok to be suspected of corruption. Do you share Mr Zuma’s views and his ethical stance? If not, why on earth would you vote for him. And if you and enough others do, does it not lower the ethical tenor of our politics to such a degree that it sends a signal that corruption is not serious and can be condoned? Would that not be bad for South Africa and especially poor people who depend on the state for delivery of services because others would think that corruption is not serious and would be corrupt? Should leaders not be beyond suspicion and lead by example? If leaders are not beyond suspicion, ordinary people will be encouraged even more to engage in corrupt practices and we will all lose.
On the rape trial: if my comments suggested I hold it against Zuma that he had sex with a very young women, I was wrong. Who cares about the age of one’s consensual sexual partners? I know I do not. I do hold it against him that he said very sexist things during his trial and did say that he showered after sex because it diminished his chances of getting HIV (he did not say, as you claim, that he showered for the sake of hygiene only). What example do these statements set for sexist men, for people who must decide whether to be safe when they have sex or not? How must it make women feel who have been raped? Once again, you can make a formalistic argument about what is allowed, legally speaking, but I think that is a very dangerous argument to make and extremely disrespectful to South Africans who you are really saying do not deserve better than this. That is called the bigotry of low expectations. Is it because most people who will suffer from corruption by state officials are black that you do not care about it?
In our law , Zuma, does have to prove his innocence. It is the State that must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As it stands he is presumed innocent by the State, views of society are an extraneous consideration in this equation.
For those who care to check the ordinary grammatical meaning of concepts before they employ them in their daily discourse, ” innocent” denotes ” not guilt of a crime or offence” Oxford 10th Edition. Only the courts determine guilt or innocent, society is not disentitled to opine yet such legal or moral opinion cannot stand on the path of Zuma to contest. The only unfit and improper persons are convicted criminals without an option of a fine.
The moralistic views we hold can only assist us to determine who we wish to vote for. We do not a prescriptive body of moral norms in our society. We are thus bound to hold diametrically opposed views at times. This is not the basis for thinking that others are unthinking because they differ with us.
There is a propensity to cast our opponents in bad light including depicting them as unintellectual. We may be surprised how such people are explosive in various areas. We must allow the debate to flow unforgivingly.
There was once upon a time, in a book called the Bible, a requirement that Christian leaders were to be “beyond reproach”.
Regardless of religious beliefs, the reason for this was to prevent disillusionment, disappointment, disunity or resentment among those who follow. Look at the recent election of Barack Obama to the White House – watching that election coverage felt like a breath of fresh air, like something in the world was right again, like there was a new hope.
Why? Simply because after 8 years of George Bush’s stench, of dodgy dealings with Middle Eastern sheik’s, after lying to the world to justify war, here came a man who was clean-cut, principled, honourable – a straight talking, hard working GENTLEMAN, made from the old mould.
White, black, asian and hispanic voters abandoned voting along racial lines, because here was, to quote, “change they could believe in.”
When you look at what we’re faced with, I almost want to cry. I don’t care about criminal records – I want a president who I can look up to, like Nelson Mandela was. These Zuma supporters should ask themselves whether they’d want their sons to grow up like Mr Zuma…or even better, if they’d want their young daughters having sex (consensual or otherwise) with Mr Zuma…
Where is our Barack Obama?
Prof. De Vos fathom your point very well. The point I think we must consider deeply is that Zuma seems to be persecuted by political forces that believe that he is not educated enough to become a President of the Republic.
I am not confident to debate deeply on the topic of morality. Won’t it be immoral to target an individual and destroy him inspired by the fact that he is contesting for President, but reluctant to indulge in holistic investigations of the arms deal to go to the bottom of this issue?
I concede that Zuma seems to have exuded some sexist positions in his political input. On this score, we need to thoroughly engage his views. I certainly think he will learn. I recall on the gay issue the Youth League engaged him and he retreated and apologised unreservedly and had since jettosined that path.
I know that in our communities gays are regarded as culturally deviants and Zuma may have shared that social construct for a very long time. It is our duty to illuminate the human right culture for the society we seek to nurture and mould.
On far flung boarding schools for teenage mothers, we will engage with his views and highlight the legal ramifications of such a project.
My hunch is that we will be saddled with the Zuma case for one more year. The SCA may overturn Nicholson’s Judgment. The matter will drag to the Constitutional Court , alternatively a sitting President may be charged, in the event he gets elected as such.
If he is charged and found guily he will step down and new President will be elected. There seems to have a lot of interference with the NPA by Mbeki on the Zuma case. The element of paucity of fear, favour and prejudice was dealt a severe blow. It is this travesty of justice that invokes my sympathy for Zuma.
You may well have point!
Big Slipper,
You may have a point but you certainly will have little say on who your children enjoy sex with. You will insidiously invade right, if adults.
I must respect your views, Tommorow is another day!!!
.I dont know guys! Maybe I m just too forgiving, I mean REAL FORGIVENESS you know, remember “…forgive us, as we forgive others!”. I honestly believe that if we were to continously judge people by their past mistakes, which they probably might have learned from, we would never find anyone elegible to hold public office-obviously no one( rather almost no one) has this perfect moral past, since we are not perfect beings. Its just that some people’s past mistakes have never( and will Never be revealed) and yet they are classified amongst the best leaders. Once a child has played with fire and nearly got his fingures burnt, parents know for sure that He will Never Ever play with fire again. To me Jacob Zuma Will Never Ever engage in anything illegal-looking again-given the persecution he has endured so far-trust me, the man has been punished enough without even having been found guilty by a court of law. We all know that Power goes with Corruption. I mean I can assure you that almost everyone in power, no matter at what level, calls for a favour once in a while- u honestly cant deny this Prof! It is for this reason that I m certain that since Zuma has the painful experience on these issues, we can rest assured that he will think twice before he involves himself in them ever again. Lets cut a man some slack, shall we?
Prof, I need to make you aware of something here, and by this I mean no offence to anyone – ignorance is bliss! South African politics are by and large still very primitive in their substance. Our election process is oxy-moronically centralized around personalities and not ideology and policies. The vaccum left by lack of quality leadership or should I say the suppression of such leadership within the ANC is a result of this approach. Most of us Blacks would be happy to pardon and harbour an habitual child abuser (hypothetical character) because he provides us with some of the things we lack and need so bad. We sell our souls to the highest bidder. JZ has made false promises to the masses & the left leaning alliances, which promises he contradicts when talking to the business people. Unfortunately, most of the people on the grass-roots don’t have the fortitude to discern this about this man, or any other politician for that matter, in order to possibly consider/establish other political alternatives. Their state of mind and socioeconomic plight, thanks to apartheid, has rendered them mentally immobile – sort of in a trance. Living in America, where the political landscape has undergone a futuristic makeover through the election of man who might become the best president ever – Obama, has taught me a very valuable lesson that electing a new president has nothing to do with emotions. Everytime there is an election you have to evaluate your expectations against what the candidates promise, and of course their history on delivery, and their respect for the public office. In South Africa, we have set our bar and expectations very, very low. So, when the country becomes a banana republic, then we should remember that we deserve the politicians that we put our ‘X’ on! Be very careful where you put your mark, lest you enslave yourself!
Oh come on Mpho.
America is possibly the worst example you can choose. Their elections are all about personalities and emotions (and, of course, lots of money). Fear for instance – how else could George W Bush have won another term? Adulation – poster-boy John F. Kennedy.
And fear, religious fervour and bigotry almost got John McCain to the White House. Fortunately another wave of fervour and hope and adulation and hope and all sorts of other emotions swept Obama to victory. Another charming pretty boy. No doubt he is a fine politician but we will have to wait to judge him on performance.
You have to look a long way back to find American presidents who were really astute politicians AND moral.
Anyway, can anyone of you tell me what you understand by INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY BY A COURT OF LAW. While your at it further tell where can I get this moral compass you use to (selectively) measure people. Further tell me what is wrong in structuring your responses in court such that you dont increminate yourself (as i m sure anyone will never just moronically give self-encreminatory evidence anywhere-one needs to be technical with one s responses, is it not so Prof?). So stop refering to Zuma s technical responses in court as “his views” on this/that. He has always told you lot that his views are always informed by collective views of ANC. Another thing- Zuma always assures people that their views will/should be listened to and debated. Yo’al are then saying he is making promises to everybody-thats a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and you know it…You d wish that he desmisses people concerns if they differed with his or his parties as yo’al dictators would, he is not like that-His strongest charectarestic is that he can listen to All (capitalists, socialists, workers, afrikanners, etc). All he promises them is that their concerns will be robustly debated-thank goodness we dont have any of you as a potential president, we would be silenced just as we were under TM, calling us ultra leftists, just as yo’al are labelling us “blind followers”
Dear Sarah Palin (nice name),
You wrote: “Oh come on Mpho. America is possibly the worst example you can choose. Their elections are all about personalities and emotions (and, of course, lots of money). Fear for instance – how else could George W Bush have won another term? …”
Au contraire Sara Palin. If it were about personalities or emotions then Sarah Palin, the fashionable hockey mom would have helped McCain big time; but because McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time, and he made a mistake a week or two before some major financial institutions went under by telling the America people that the economic foundations of the Union are strong. That did him in. So, the Americans were tired of the Bush policies that brought them the current financial mess. So they voted not on personalities, but on issues. In this case, economic issues and yes the never ending war which Obama voted against proving that he had the right judgment.
George W. Bush won a second term – also not because of his personality. Although the war in Iraq will always be attributed to Bush, but Bush alone could not have taken America to war. He was given the mandate by Congress. So the war was a popular issue among a majority of Americans. John Kerry narrowly lost to Bush because of issues not personalities.
• Ohio, the State that gave Bush the win, voted against John Kerry on issues of abortion among others. Christian ministers, in particular Black churches (Democrats), voted against John Kerry on moral and religious grounds.
• Bush successfully painted John Kerry a flip-flipper on the war in Iraq. John Kerry had criticized Bush on the war on Iraq in his campaigns; yet Kerry voted with Bush and Clinton for the war.
Be not fooled by the Obama victory, a lot of Americans are still racist. Obama’s person and personalities were the subject of attacks throughout his campaign. But, the Americans looked beyond emotions and into who can bring about a better life for them. They looked at the person with a better vision and better policies that could bring about the change they needed. And Obama got the nod.
Unfortunately in South Africa Zuma will get the nod because of sympathy. By his own admission Zuma has no vision and no policy of his own. In fact judging by his flip-flopping on the issue, he does not even know whether the current policies are going to change or not, and if they are going to change what direction will they be leaning toward. What a pity.
Ishmael,
Are you serious? The Youth league had to correct and guide Zuma on the gay issue? Do you really want a leader that still has to be educated on certain issues such as gender equality and nogal by the very youth that should be looking up to him for leadership and direction? Should he really be engaged and guided on issues that are enshrined in our constitution, issues of which he should be the champion? Do you really want a leader where you are constantly wonder ing if you are going to be made to cringe with embarrasment everytime he opens his mouth?
I remember the BBC interview where he was asked whether he was a crook? Why oh why did he not just answer “No, I am not a crook. I am an honest man.” ? The reason why he did not give a straightforward answer to this question is as clear as daylight to me.
Even if we assume (if you really want to be that gullible) that the payments received from Shaik was just a loan, do you really think that South Africans deserve a leader that does not have the financial discipline to live within his means? The world is going through a financial crisis at the moment and although South Africa has been insulated against some of the effects of the crisis, we are still affected by it. Do you really think that we deserve to get a leader who is not even on top of his own finances to lead us to wheather this storm?
Please Ishmael, you guys should really reconsider your support for Zuma.
Shakira, the significant proportion of our society lives beyond its means. Politicians are assisted because the state gives then a house, transport and catering during official state functions. They would be a minute sect of our populace who would satisfy your high water mark.
I just need to comment tersesly on the question of championing human rights. I suppose that some of us may be inhabitants of a complex or sophisticated territory and we ought not to judge a president on that praxis.
We have to appreciate that we live in a constitutional state in which there is a special place for legal scholars and the judiciary to man the field. Zuma is not a lawyer but a layperson whose actions upon being elected will have to be proscribed by the law. He will not be permitted to wonder in uncharted fields unguided.
We have unexpressed fears in society. The astute scholars are experts at concealing their inherent human weaknesses. As the saying goes: we are all not infallible. Zuma must only fall by the legal sword not moral bullets that are vast and extensive and incapable of agreed figure. I have observed diverse thoughts on morality and believe that we cannot create a complex of norms on which we all agree to stem the tight of political ambition as humanity.
It is on this basis that I suggest that we circumscribe our criteria on the legal intruments we created to determine fitness and propriety for political office.
I also seem to hold a view that Zuma is not in the same mould as Basson and PW Botha. His implication of bribery or corruption is still conjecture. The court are yet to pronounce. I have deliberately become partisan in the discourse.
Pierre,
On the friends of Jacob Zuma site, the following is the lead quote on the page. Could you write one your constitutional notes. Constitutional right to reply? Excuse me. Denied a right to defend himself?
“For a period of five years my person has been subjected to all types of allegations and innuendo, paraded through the media and other corridors of influence without these allegations having being tested. I have thereby been denied my constitutional right to reply and defend myself.”
– Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, June 29, 2005.
Mpho Mogadingoane,
You do not think because you are rich or poor. Social wealth and intellectual wealth are not interlinked, yet not mutially exclusive. I am amazed at your disregard on ordinary south africans. Just to fill you in, it is the down throdden masses of this land in the rural hinterland and townships that have brought us constitutional democracy on which you are gliding. You otherwise would not be fixated on the internet expressing your simple views of a high school child.
The ANC is not being voted on the basis of personalities but policy imperatives and its historical significance as a political liberator. We still need to be liberated from economic bondage that is why we still regard the ANC as a liberation movement.
I am at grassrroots and poor: I’m I less thinking than you? What unbridled arrogance. You will notice after decades that you might be in an intellectual trance in those befuddled expressions.
Anyway, you have clarified on the American contemporary political mood. Personalities are not the basis on the current Obama success. The americans are tired of the war and the long Republican reign; anguished by economic pinge of the recession; losing houses, jobs, hunger, world hatred of USA, so on and forth.
You are entirely off the mark, Obama may equally be an inspiring personality, but does not give a lisence to churn out inconclusive generalisations
What is your point Montana?
Excellent post Prof.
Regarding Lindelani
I have said it before, I investigated him a couple of months ago from information he volunteered on this blog:
- He is registered at the Law Society of the Northern Provinces (you can’t see him on the website yet, but I phoned them)
- They confirmed the place he did his articles as claimed by him.
- They confirmed where he studied to be as he said.
- I phoned the place where he did his articles, they confirmed.
- I invited him to a blog I especially created to get hold of his email address and the source of his internet connection. His email address checks out to be from the company he said as well as the internet address from which he was connecting, which is registered to that company.
- The law society was even willing to give me his phone number (as you could get from searching for members on the website), but I declined.
In order to completely fake all of the above, he’d have to be the Systems Administrator for that company, to usurp or fake the email address, it is literally impossible to fake. And he must have known that he could get this person’s details from the law society themselves, since it is not available on the internet. This is extremely unlikely as he would have to have dabbled in two divergent fields of expertise.
He is real as far as I am concerned. I suspect he has fallen for some social ills as he has mentioned at some point before, but I decline to elaborate on that.
Look, the man is obviously guilty of corruption. So it is sadly either off with his head, or South Africa kisses the rule of law, and any hope of a prosperous future for all, goodbye!
Peter, you are as good as dumb!
” It is a matter of personal choice if one must willingly submit himself to prosecution even when he believes that the charges are politically motivated to seek the intervention of courts to protect his fundamental constitutional rights. This a legal right !; not a political priviledge”
I totally agree with you on this submission. I feel an enjoyment of your constitutional right should not be used against you to impute guilt on your part. How Proff and others pass a judgement that a person is not fit and proper to hold a specific office, when fully exploring his rights only God knows.
The issue of morality is purely subjective and should be understood across cultural lines. What JZ did with his rape accuser may be immoral to you Prof but not to him,given his culture and that goes to the down to the rights as mentioned in our constitution.
Lets just wait for next year election.
Zuma is so far innocent and eligible for political office. Any informed and honest lawyer will concede to that. Prof. had asserted his own valuable thoughts and we have striven to engage them. It is the issue of morality which he believes must come into the fray. I suggest that is a wide net which can eclipse everyone.
On a moral ground, Harms will be disqualified to preside over Zuma’s appeal looking at the fact that he waw a member of an organisation that the intellectual hub of the apartheid order and a judge who exonerated murders in a Commission of Inquiry.
I have learnt to disabuse my mind of such moralisitc considerations and hope that he (Harms and crew)would only depend on the law and the relevant facts not that Zuma is a former “terrorist” who seized power from racist white supremacists !
Morality debates of the nature we seem to espouse are overbroad and utopian in realisation. We must have a legally acceptable measure of moralism not abstraction of unrealistic proportions.
Peter!
You should be ashamed of yourself. When did our courts start convicting people even before their appearance in court?
Mel, you are correct ! dead correct but I bet the Judges might have already caucused on finishing Zuma through courts. The SCA is the most untransformed of our level of courts. They will certainly extaminate Zuma.
I used to visit a Judge at the CC and we would reflect on legal qiestions in relation to some live issues. It is reality. The judges when at home, like former Judge Kriegler was reflecting on the Nicholson Judgment, interact on these issues.
The writings of legal scholars such as Prof. are used are unacknowledged legal literature for the impending decision to reverse Zuma’s legal gains.
The legal uncertainty that has emerged since the inception of the Zuma case has done indelible dent on the intergrity of the Judiciary.
Society now believes it is a matter of luck or the choices of a judge for one to extract a favourable judgment. The jurisprudence is a continuum of a rough contest of discord by the Judiciary.
Judges are rescheduling the Court roll just to have Zuma case coming before elections. These are the politico-legal machinations that undoubtedly and manifestly demonstrate the intense interest of the Judiciary in the Zuma matter. It is the mainstay of every discourse today, moral, legal, philosophical, cultural and so on.
We may conveniently hide behind the veil of the training of the judiciary and paucity of fear, favour and prejudice but the reality is that Judges want to demostrate their political significance beyond elections by thwarting the possibility of a Zuma presidency. It it were a case of a poor South African seeking relief on something else, the roll could not be tempered with.
In three weeks from now, I suspect the SCA would have concluded a Judgment or already written. I am not a hacker to check on their writings. I do not disrespect the Judiciary but I have the right to entertain suspicions!
Peter is a Judge: a media judge who convicted Zuma based on reports he received about Zuma trial and the
conclusive Shaik SCA judgment. Peter , the Judge!!
Mel
‘The issue of morality is purely subjective’.
Every individual may have their subjective views on morality but, as we are citizens living together under a Constitution, that doesn’t mean we can arbitrarily put our morals into practice. Familiarise yourself with the Bill of Rights, in particular sections 30 and 31.
Otherwise, why should the law punish someone who believes it was his God-given right to kill his family or someone who kills and dismembers a child for muti or someone who chops off another person’s hand because they stole something?
Sara Palin, Mel is a lawyer with impeccable credentials in Constitutional Law. Precisely , the point that the Bill of Rights is the main tool for determining suitability of Zuma to be president. This rights are not incapable of review from time to time. The only fetter to change of the bill of rights is humanly possible, two third majority and the ANC had it !.
The ANC constructed and will zealously defend and assert this bill of rights. Constitutional law has become a an academic discipline in which professors have been produced with almost supernatural expertise above politicians that produced the same constitution.
In is this connection that Prof and I can challenge Zuma correctness on some of his strong views. His infallibility is also found among the Judiciary. We have Judges who thoruoghly misconstrue the substance of the Constitution.
It is not only Zuma, even academicians are found wanting on this area. That is why we have an appeal or review process and the CC the apex court of constitutional matters and those connected therewith !.
Prof – good post once again. Pity the eloquence and clarity thereof once again seemed to have gone astray when friends of JZ (e.g., Ishmael Malale, Spuy, etc) typically “blinkers-on”, try to make sense out of the whole “presumption of innocence – thing” for the followers of JZ and his opposition.
Ishmael Malale – Try and understand that, in terms of your argument, the Nazi criminals were “‘innocent” until they were convicted at Nuremberg and sentenced (some to death); and, until then, they were legally and, once again in terms of your argument, politically, ethically and morally able, competent and correct to lead and govern Germany (and the conquered territories). Until his demise, Adolf Hitler, who was never convicted by a court of law, was politically, ethically and morally able and competent to lead and govern Germany (and the conquered territories) in the way he did. Idi Amin, who was likewise never convicted by a court of law, was politically, morally and ethically able and competent to lead and govern Uganda. The same goes for the Bosnian war criminals, Charles Taylor of Liberia and even George Bush. Etc., etc. Be real, man!
The following passage from one of Spuy’s poor responses will illustrate my point exactly: “We all know that Power goes with Corruption. I mean I can assure you that almost everyone in power, no matter at what level, calls for a favour once in a while- u honestly cant deny this Prof! It is for this reason that I m certain that since Zuma has the painful experience on these issues, we can rest assured that he will think twice before he involves himself in them ever again. Lets cut a man some slack, shall we?” = I mean, it is like saying, if you are in a position of power, it is to an extent alright to commit crimes (like corruption), and, if you can get away with impunity due to the political, moral and ethical standards of the majority of the population (God forbid!) and the (misinformed) perception of some followers that he has now been converted from being an imoral and unethical man, the criminal law and legal system should not be applicable to you and you should be allowed to govern. … You know, only mushrooms (and I am not one) prosper if they are constantly kept in the dark and fed shit.
Montana was just trying to point out the nonsensical blubber of JZ’s post on the friends of JZ site, which reads thus:
““For a period of five years my person has been subjected to all types of allegations and innuendo, paraded through the media and other corridors of influence without these allegations having being tested. I have thereby been denied my constitutional right to reply and defend myself.”
– Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, June 29, 2005.”
Only children with a very basic education will not see that this response by JZ is nonsense. He has “thereby” (”whereby”?; the period of five years?; the allegations and innuendos that have been paraded through the media?) been DENIED his constitutional right to reply and defend himself!!! What about his numerous court applications to NOT have his day in court, with the constitutional right to reply and defend hiomself?! And, you can still say with a straight face that he is, not only legally, but politically, ethically and morally able and competent to govern this nation?
mel – “Peter!
You should be ashamed of yourself. When did our courts start convicting people even before their appearance in court?” The problem is that JZ and his so-called friends, that squander R Millions (of taxpayers’ and donors’ money) on frivilous and vexatious court applications to keep the matter out of court is in fact denying society to, through the courts, exercise the right and opportunity to see whether the allegations and innuendos against JZ, that have been paraded through the media, are true.
@ Spuy -
“Once a child has played with fire and nearly got his fingures burnt, parents know for sure that He will Never Ever play with fire again. To me Jacob Zuma Will Never Ever engage in anything illegal-looking again-given the persecution he has endured so far-trust me, the man has been punished enough without even having been found guilty by a court of law.”
Any thoughts as to how Zuma has been funding his not-so-parsimonious lifestyle since he was fired as deputy president?
Sara!
When i said the issue of morality is purely subjective, what i meant was people should not assess the suiatabilty of JZ to be the president on a parochial moral grounds overlooking different cultures we have in the country.
Remember the foremost legal criteria to become the president is a person’scriminal record, but consideration of morality is for us the voters. I invite factuall correction on my view.
mel // Nov 26, 2008 at 9:29 am
“I feel an enjoyment of your constitutional right should not be used against you to impute guilt on your part.”
……………………………………………………………………………………
I used to believe that too but after what I witnessed in Cape Town last week I am now careful in drawing a lucid distinction between practice and paper; famously between “what is and what ought to be”!
One of the examiners for the Board Exams (Exams that attorneys pass before being admitted as attorneys) told us that it would be better if, in answering exam questions, we would just answer them in the numerical order and not start with any question we want as that gives an indication to the examiner or marker that you do not know the questions you answered last!
I immediately registered my discontentment with his suggestion and asked if it does not thwart our prerogative of starting with any question we want and also to save time, when an adverse inference would be drawn from excercising that prerogative. He responded by saying that we should leave space!
More specifically, it is legally permissible for Mr. Jacob Zuma to fully exercise his constitutional rights and avoid having his day in court or at least delay it until next year’s elections. This indeed is his legal right and not just a political privilege afforded only to the rich and famous.
However, the ordinary man on the street will not view such a move as an excercise of constitutional rights but merely as delay tactics calculated to thwart, obstruct or defeats the ends of justice. This will be viewed as a move by him to pull a smoke-screen to cover the illicit conduct which has resulted in the conviction of his financial advisor Shaik who was, needless to say, acting on his behalf and on his instructions!
This view has been strengthened by the declaration by Zuma himself that if he goes down then he will make sure that he goes down with others as well who were involved in the Arms Deal. Not only does this denote his guilt but it also outlines his intention to protect his co-perpetraitors. This in fact amounts to defeating or obstructing the ends of justice and he could be charged for this if there is sufficient evidence.
To avoid making this a laborious essay, I will conclude here by saying that, in view of the peculiar circumstances and taking into account all the facts in Jacob Zuma’s case, he is NOT a fit and proper person to be the President of this country. Prof has explained this in detail so I will not dwell on it but I was just substantiating his incisive arguments.
Mel
Ishmael Malale informs us you are a constitutionl lawyer. I’m afraid that I am a layperson, so I confess that I don’t understand all the niceties of your argument. I agree with you that a person’s criminal record is the foremost legal criterion and that citizens use their own morality when voting.
Perhaps what I misinterpreted was your statement that ‘what JZ did with his rape accuser may be immoral to you Prof but not to him’. I understood you to mean that regardless of the verdict, JZ would be entitled to hold the view that he had not raped his accuser, because the law might say he was guilty of a crime but his culture led him to believe otherwise.
Note, bloggers – before a storm descends upon my head – that was hypothetical. I know that JZ was found not guilty.
Ishmael Malale // Nov 26, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Judges are rescheduling the Court roll just to have Zuma case coming before elections.”
…………………………………………………………………………………
I will not be technical here and argue that judges are not responsible for the court schedules but the Registrars are; That argument will not take us anywhere. Therefore, I proceed to deal with the substance and not the technicality or procedure of your argument;
One of the constitutional roles of the courts in the Republic of South Africa is to uphold the Constitution and to protect its sanctity and effectiveness and effeciency; this is a constitutional duty and not just a role or a guideline!
This duty, which is very hard to perform given the various threats to the judiciary (you have the examples so I will not even mention them here), is performed by, inter alia, checks and balances on the Legislature and the Executive. This means that the competent courts have a constitutional prerogative to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional and therefore null and void and to declare that the conduct of the President is unconstitutional or that the army cannot be set against the unrully citizens instead of the police to arrest them and bring them to book, unless they are threatening the national security.
In compliance with this duty, if the courts foresee that if the case of Zuma were to be allowed to progress until or after the elections such would prejudice this country or the administration of justice, then the courts have a right, indeed a duty, to make sure that such does not happen. If this means, subject to the agreement of the parties involved, that the court roll has to be changed to accomodate this new case, then that will be the case!
Secondly, there is what we call public interest. This is such an important part of the South African society that sometimes defamation cases are thrown out of court because the information revealed or lied about was in the public interest! You should read Bogoshi v National Media Ltd and the cases referred thereto.
Jacob Zuma’s case is, needless to say, a matter of public interest. This means that it is in the public interest that his case be adjudicated upon as speedily as possible. In the words of Zuma himself; “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
You should stop given us contrasting statements! At first Zuma argued that he should have his day in court instead of having his name paraded in the media as though he had already been convicted and not being afforded an opportunity to defend himself.
That notwithstanding, this year he is going in and out of courts trying to avoid having “his day in court”. I know he is legally entitled to do so but he must remember that this move is making him appear guilty in the eyes of the public!
In conclusion, it is in everyone’s interest that Zuma’s guilt or otherwise be determined before he assumes office after Malema has “killed” for him next year.
Moral lines:
Moral lines exist implicitly and it is not a bad idea to debate the definition of those lines, and whether or not we should expect our country’s leaders to be of a certain quality in this regard. There are many people you wouldn’t trust with the power of state, who have not got any legal impediment, this does not mean you are wrong to question whether they are fit and proper from a non-legal standpoint.
Leadership lines:
Aside from the moral lines there are also implicit lines of what people view as good leadership. These can be culturally relative, but culture is also dynamic. Sometimes the easiest is to point out what you consider bad leadership as a measure of disqualification.
For me a leader who does not reign in militant public statements from followers with equally public, immediate, clear and diffusive statements, is not a good leader because in my view allowing such may create situations of escalation and may leave followers feeling implicitly condoned. In Zuma’s case this has happened repeatedly over the years.
Convergence:
Sometimes bad leadership (still relative) can even become a moral issue if you consider the possible negative consequences of such leadership. There has been a militarisation of public discourse under Zuma’s watch and it might cost us dearly. Hopefully it does not, but it sometimes takes a single spark such as with the “xenophobic” violence earlier this year to spread and give others the courage to act out what they might otherwise have contained.
In my relative view a good leader in Africa would be all too familiar with the history of violence on the continent. He would know that the Rwandan genocide was made easier by leaders dehumanising others through constant name calling. Cockroaches, snakes and dogs, fits into this category. (but I am not implying that we will see anything on the Rwandan *scale* happening)
One statement from a youth leaguer is poignant: “they behave like cockroaches and they must be destroyed”, his clarification was “We must kill them.” and then later further ‘clarified’ with:
“I would destroy a cockroach, I would never kill a person.”
This statement illustrates the dehumanisation. It is not an incredible statement to make to suggest that Zuma’s leadership has contributed to this situation. Allowing his friends to threaten to destabilise the whole country on his behalf, also fits in here. But that is just my view. Even on this blog there have been threats of killing coming from attorneys and not just Lindelani!
Language is not harmless as a cursory study of the use of and psychology of language in history can reveal. The mere fact that propaganda exists and works illustrates this.
I don’t seem to hear the Zuma supporters playing out the ifs. Proper risk management requires answering the ifs. If this then do that, or else do this. It is not a case of me saying I believe he is guilty but of analysing possible outcomes.
What do we do if our president is found guilty of this crime? Is that a fair possible risk scenario to put the whole country through because of one man, even though so many others qualify for the job? What will the costs be to the country, is he worth that risk?
The fact that someone else has been convicted already based on mostly the same evidence, makes the likelihood of conviction from a planning perspective (not guilt perspective) higher. Is it not better for the case to be finished and thereafter he can stand? This is not a school teacher accused of molestation and people question whether he should be suspended or not and parents want to take their kids out of the school: This is the highest public office in the country. There are real consequences of this.
Why take the risk? Some say to avoid the risk we should have a political solution, and that seems to go down a dark moral road.
Anonymous, you seem able to see my microscopic blinkers, which I ironically see in you. I as a lawyer will never say Zuma is quilty beyond a court of law. Your sychophantic praising of Prof. spoils the debate.
I have made it clear that Zuma certaintly not be equated with the fascists, apartheid architects and so on. He is not a killer and oppressor. He has not been found quilty of the allegations of bribery and corruption.
All we have is conjecture based on the evidence admitted against Shaik. The inconclusive fax and diary entry of visit does not suggest anything beyond circumstantial evidence sought to justifiy an inference that Zuma knew about the alleged 500 000 bribe.
The examples you give are overcritical and far fetched and irrelevant in the Zuma debate. You probably do not have your reading spectacles on, you would see the thread of my argument that Zuma doea not fall in that mould of Hitler, Adi Amin, BP Botha, Basson and so on. Those are murders whose crimes were validated. Zuma is a subject in inconclusive investigations and innocent.
If you care to ascribe words their proper meaning not what you wish them to connote. We have not seen any judgment of corruption against Zuma, but you have it in your mind. In so far as you are concerned Zuma is a convinct. Prof. has never asserted your position. He advanced a moral argument for the disqualification of Zuma on the strength of the ten points. I hold that that those points are encrusted in some legalistic garment that he believed that a shower prevents HIV, gays are unaceptaqble in society, servicing a much younger adult when in polygamous territoty. The inconclusive evidence in Shaik matter. Some go as further as financial ill-discipline. I hold a different view. Call me friends of Satan or enemy God but I say the law does not prohibit him to stand and he must! If he is found quilty he will relinquish the High Office.
He is not beyond the reach of the law, especially the law manipulated to destroy a strong candidate for president by those bestowed with powers to investigate anybody and determine who to charge!
He will not escape, the judiciary are even fighting on the ZUma case. I still maintain that it is a collosal fuss.
I personally believe that a commission of inquiry would even give society more justice than the selective justice only found relevant as regards Zuma and perhaps poor convict Shaik. There could be big fish lyinf in the sea !
Srah
” Perhaps what I misinterpreted was your statement that ‘what JZ did with his rape accuser may be immoral to you Prof but not to him’. I understood you to mean that regardless of the verdict, JZ would be entitled to hold the view that he had not raped his accuser, because the law might say he was guilty of a crime but his culture led him to believe otherwise ”
Well i guess your misinterpretation was at your own peril. One was speaking in hyphothetical sense trying to explain clearly why was saying the issue is purely subjective.
I wish the ANC had taken the aproach of “let the law take its cause” when it comes to JZ. If the trial is really just politically motivated, the evidence against JZ would not be sufficient to obtain a conviction anyway so why not just let it be tested in a court of law and get it over with?
I wish they had said to him; “Comrade Zuma, we will support you 100% in your quest to have your name cleared, but the job of President of our country is a very important job. We cannot therefore afford to have a leader who is on the one hand fighting a legal battle to clear his name and stay out of jail and at the same time trying to lead a country that is facing huge challenges. We think it is more important for you to invest all your efforts into fighting your legal battles and to rather give somebody else the opportunity to lead our country.” I wish they can make that anouncement today and say that Zuma has agreed to step down as ANC President and that Kgalema will be their candidate for the presidency in 2009.
The link to the SCA ruling appears to be broken.
http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZASCA/2006/105.html
Ishmale Malale – “The examples you give are overcritical and far fetched and irrelevant in the Zuma debate. You probably do not have your reading spectacles on, you would see the thread of my argument that Zuma doea not fall in that mould of Hitler, Adi Amin, BP Botha, Basson and so on. Those are murders whose crimes were validated. Zuma is a subject in inconclusive investigations and innocent.”
Oh, I see. (1) Allegations of corruption and bribery by a top state (top government) official to enrich himself (and a few friends and colleagues) through an arms deal are not as serious as allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, therefore, a person accused thereof should be allowed to escape his day in court to establish whether those allegations are true or without substance. [ERGO: Because a traffic offence, e.g. drunken driving, is not such a serious crime as, e.g. murder, a government official should not be prosecuted and, if convcicted, punished for such lesser crimes.] (2) The investigations against Zuma are inconclusive (in other words, the prosecution does not have any evidence to butress its allegations against him) and, therefore, he is innocent (even though he has not been absolved in a court of law). (3) For these reasons, even though there might be a case against him, JZ is politically, ethically, morally a fit and proper person to run a country.
Are you really a lawyer?
“He is not beyond the reach of the law, especially the law manipulated to destroy a strong candidate for president by those bestowed with powers to investigate anybody and determine who to charge!
He will not escape, the judiciary are even fighting on the ZUma case. I still maintain that it is a collosal fuss.”
Your (legal) point being?
Thanks Z
Pierre
No prob.
Shakira, Zuma is not prepared to submit himself to the quillotine without seeking protection of the court. He is a perfect tool to test the power of the Judiciary to protect us under its wings.
The reason why we are tenacious is to prove a point that even in the face of persecution of powerful state apparatus, the courts will protect you before even reaching the sharp edges of the quillotine. It is not illegal to institute interlocutory applications. This is a creation of the judiciary. We will employ it to the end.
Anyway, Shakira until found quilt, Zuma will remain the candidate. The real issue which all of us are not prepared to see is that the erstwile president , whose fearlessness to debate complex issues I marvel at, was resolved to persecute Zuma through the NPA.
It is that context which ossified feelings. If the Zuma case was a natural flow of normal investigatory process, it would be easy to say someone else must just lead us. Succumbing will encourage political backstabbing by means of NPA in the future. The NPA will transform into an independent instrument going forward. At the moment it is impartial and a tool for certain forces that have placed persons in there to deal with their own adversaries.
We are not honest enough to admit as South Africans that this crucial institution and scorpions were politicised during the tenure of the mighty Mbeki, who entertained a subtle interest to change the Constitution to allow third term or remove limits emulating Britain.
It is just astounding how the most articulate piece of writing can not guarantee that intelligent people will not confuse the issue and become emotive. There is a difference between law and morality, but the two are also intertwined. The law is there, inter alia, to maintain a certain level of morality and many laws developed from morality. Although there is a subjective element to morality that would be influenced by culture and the like, most people would be able to agree on what is right and what is wrong and thus an objective morality of sorts can crystallize.
There have been presidents that have made mistakes, and sometimes we are able to look past their indiscretions (although we never forget them) and still celebrate what they had achieved while in office (e.g. Clinton, Reagan).
Problem here is that Zuma is not yet president and whether he has been found guilty or not he has already been linked to too many foul things. Is it just bad luck? Can it really be that he is being targeted? I suppose it is possible, but it seems rather unlikely.
But even if he is being targeted, he just does not seem to possess the qualities that I want in a leader: Someone who is honest, ethical, law-abiding, non-ostentatious with (our) money and emotionally intelligent. Surely these are characteristics that cut across all cultures and are the minimum requirements for an effective and inspirational leader?
It is time that we raise the standard of our expectations and not just be content to settle for the lowest common denominator. There are enough leaders in this country with clean hands that we can look to.
Anonymous, you remain blind to my argument. You cannot equate Hitler, Botha and Zuma. The reason for this is that there is not any evidence that conclusively proves that Zuma is a recipient of bribe or corrupt.
The allegations are yet to be validated, you cannot equate a foetus with a born child, perhaps you can.
May be I must ask of you if you are a “real” lawyer, if not a cheap moral exponent. It is typical of epithet throwers when overpowered in discourse to start questioning one’s status.
You cannot even equate speeding with murder unless on your subjective abysmal moral watermark incapable of legal justification.
Zuma protests that he is a victim of political victimisation. Even the lalleged victin of rape was interacting with the intteligence before and after the alleged rape. What is she was an operative to remove a political opponent. Thanks for the Judgment of Van Der Merwe !
Ishmael
“The real issue which all of us are not prepared to see is that the erstwile president , whose fearlessness to debate complex issues I marvel at, was resolved to persecute Zuma through the NPA.”
So have you then determined Mbeki’s guilt? Zuma’s accusations of a political prosecution are accepted by you implicitly, since you keep referring back to it as a basis for argument. Yet the best judgement you have in support of this is Nicholson, which wasn’t hearing evidence on the matter, but pointed to merit based on one side of the story.
Yet the case against Zuma has prima facie evidence in its support, (not just conjecture on wordings what was said and timings of events), a conviction already obtained on that basis (Shaik). Yet you accept the political persecution argument?
I am not implying that there wasn’t political interference, but that you *seem* to employ double standards on the matter.
We are not confines to legal debates. we are holistic here ! legalism v human reality is the point !
Z despite my personal convictions on Mbeki, I must noy hold them against him until so proven. That is my point. Why do we want to destroy Zuma’s political career when the court have not pronounced him unfit to govern! I say the moralistic flag is prejudicial to the potential president.
Or must I be arrogant and say let votes resolve the impasse! with voters guided by their moral sense!
pure personal morals do not allow me to offer water to a killer, but legal morality allows rights
Christi van der Westhuizen has a very chilling and thought provoking article on Thought Leader about this debate. See http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/christivanderwesthuizen/2008/11/25/the-z-factor-is-the-real-jacob-zuma-emerging. She writes: As an illustration of the dynamics, Lodge relays the chilling tale of Thami Zulu which was reported in the British media in 1991. Zulu was the head of Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) in Natal in the 1980s. The apartheid security police infiltrated the ANC in Swaziland, which led to the assassinations of leaders and arrests of guerrillas.
Acting over the heads of MK, Mbokhodo then detained Zulu and other activists from Natal. MK commander Joe Modise and MK head of staff Chris Hani tried on several occasions to secure Zulu’s release but failed. When Mbokhodo finally let him go in November 1989, he died five days later. The autopsy showed he had been poisoned with pesticide.
Then Lodge wrote: “Both The Guardian and Africa Confidential attributed Zulu’s fall to institutional animosity between Mbokhodo and Umkhonto and the personal rivalry of Jacob Zuma, then heading security, who had apparently resented both Zulu’s ascendancy and Umkhonto’s chief of staff Chris Hani, whose protégé Zulu had been.”
Ishmael – you have been found guilty of the exact thing you accused me of. Aaah, the smell of hypocrisy in the air.
If COPE campaigns only on the single issue of defending the rule of law against its attempted subversion by the ANC, they will still have my vote!
I hope that is not the basis for your not being well disposed against Zuma?
” towards” must replace against
Start debating Peter, the Judge!
Ishmael Malale – “Or must I be arrogant and say let votes resolve the impasse! with voters guided by their moral sense!”
Is that not the role of elections in democracy?
“pure personal morals do not allow me to offer water to a killer, but legal morality allows rights”
This kind of nonsensical poetry gets one nowhere – and is definitely not the kind of rhetoric one expects of a lawyer. (Such nonsensical argument and rhetoric, which does not have any bearing on the facts and the law concerning the matter at hand, in the style of that clown, Zehir Omar, will not hold in any court of law anywhere in the world.)
What gets us somewhere, is if debates such as these become public, and are widely publicised, so that voters (who are not as stupid as the (current) ANC believes them to be) can decide for themselves whether JZ is a fit and proper person to govern good ol’ SA, and so that they are not continuously blinded by JZ and his sycophantic retinue the likes of your (unlawyerly) self.
Lastly, your argument that JZ cannot be equated to Hitler etc has not gone unnoticed (I did not remain blind therefor); but, you appear not to be able to grasp that one cannot use the ’small sin’ / ‘big sin’ argument to justify a leader’s perceived morality and ethical standards.
Ishmael
You side step my argument. You said: “The real issue… is that the erstwile president was resolved to persecute Zuma through the NPA.”
How is that an undecided mind? Speaking of the *real* issue is strong language use and reflects a strong belief in the importance of that which you said. So not only have you decided guilt in the matter but have resolved it to be of prime importance, yet claim that you should hold Mbeki innocent.
Ishmael Malale –
“Then Lodge wrote: “Both The Guardian and Africa Confidential attributed Zulu’s fall to institutional animosity between Mbokhodo and Umkhonto and the personal rivalry of Jacob Zuma, then heading security, who had apparently resented both Zulu’s ascendancy and Umkhonto’s chief of staff Chris Hani, whose protégé Zulu had been.” – Pierre De Vos // Nov 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm quoting from the article by Christi van der Westhuizen
And then you still say that JZ cannot be equated to the likes of Hitler et al? JZ appears more and more to be an immoral and unethical person the likes of Dingaan.
The problem with Ishmael and Spuy is that the standard that they set for someone to be the President of South Africa is too low. They concede some of Zuma’s flaws, but then counter it with, “oh but Mbeki was worse” or “everybody has made that mistake once or twice. ”
They don’t want a leader that is exemplary. They want someone who is fallable, who makes the same mistakes that the majority of South Africans make. For instance just like a lot of other South Africans, Zuma made the potentially deadly mistake of having unprotected sexual intercourse with an HIV positive woman. He is just like many others who are contributing to or AIDS statistics. They want someone who displays poor financial discipline just like many South Africans who are living beyond their means and who does not understand the concept and the implications of rising household debt and a poor savings rate.
Their standard for being fit and proper to be a leader is so low that even someone as flawed as Zuma qualifies.
Ishmael – I do not follow this idea that we cannot express our opinion on anything that might one day go to court. Zuma is a public figure and I am paying for all of his legal manouvering and have every right to express my opinion.
I think he is guilty – it is plain obvious to me. I may be wrong of course, but something dramatic will need to emerge to convince me. Do you have any such revelations?
Do you take it as given that OJ Simpson is innocent because a court found him not guilty?
I am disgusted by this approach taken by the ANC of trying to discredit the NPA and the CCourt. And now we hear that there will be organised bussed in toy-toying outside the SCA. Why? Why not let the court decide in a quiet environment. Why try to intimidate the SCA? Is the ANC now a party of facist thugs?
This debate must not degenerate into a stone throwing exercise. It will the money and time we invest to debate here. The presidency of Zuma is not going to be premised on some moralist argument-bites pivoted upon poorly digested facts.
This website is a public thing in which debates amongs the quasi-elite able to access the internet rages. We acknowledge your media judgment, AJA Peter but simply do not concur with your undigested conclusions.
Just wake up and read the meaning of the concept: innocent; guilty before you shock society with your strange reflections.
You will realise we are reluctant to engage you may just insult us. Lindelani will catch up with you soon !
Go vote your COPE, it’s your democratic right ! I hope you do not write insults on your ballot paper or praises as that may just count to naught; queue causing presence on election day.
Peaceful demostrations are also a democratic right. You Mr. media judge ! You can also wear yellow T-shirt with Lekota’s anguished face and clamour for the rule of law which is enshrined in the Constitution and unthreatened anyway!
You seem dictatorial in your character, you want to ban demonstrations !
How you have sex in your house and viral status is not our concern, how many partners you have is also not our business. All we need is policies which will uplift our people from misery. That is our barometer. overly moralistic axe is not for me to wield, but a concede anybody may do so as they wish.
Shakira, I actually mean that the fact that Zuma received money from a friend for his famility use beyond his own financial means is niether moral sin nor a crime unless court conclude that bribery or corruption ocurred. And this never occurred.
Your bar is almost unrealisitically high!
Prof. I read the article to which you referred. it is only a media article not hard evidence which suggest Zuma killed or instructed the killing of Zulu. That must be proven before it counts against him.
Anonymous is sinking in anger now. This debate is helpless at this state. I gain less
Ishmael
Care to reply to: z // Nov 26, 2008 at 12:41 pm?
Ishmael Malale – “Anonymous is sinking in anger now. This debate is helpless at this state.” Speak for yourself man! I’m not angry, just being logical. And, even if I were angry, why would you be afraid to engage a puny little mouse (I see you have not used my pseudonymn correctly in any of the above posts). It is when a person becomes angry during debate that the stature and status of his/her views are properly revealed. Yours have been unimpressive, to say the least.
As far as the “media article” is concerned – unless JZ openly and publicly denies that he at all had a finger in the pie of Zulu’s demise, the public (the VOTERS, not the COURTS) would be entitled to think that he is guilty thereof – I doubt whether the courts will ever hear a thing thereof, just like the courts would never hear a thing about some of the mosty heinous crimes committed by the security forces and heads of state (and, some prominent ANC and PAC members) during apartheid. These things have a tendency to be covered up by those who blindly follow their leader. … The same, of course, applies to the allegations and innuendos of corruption. Jacob Z uma has yet to publicly state that he is INNOCENT (”Just wake up and read the meaning of the concept: innocent; guilty before you shock society with your strange reflections.”!!) Thus far he has only been lamenting that he has not had the opportunity to properly DEFEND himself before a court of law on these allegations and innuendos; and, he has also been trying to stop the NPA from taking him to court to see whether these allegations and innuendos could be proven. He (and his blind followers) had to date been quite pertinent in saying that he is being made the scapegoat for political expediency, whilst others might get off scott-free. He has however to date not said a word of his being INNOCENT. And, that, my dear learned friend, gives rise to reasonable suspicions in the minds of the public (who are not lawyers, and who can care less whether he has been properly charged and convicted by a court of law) that he is in fact guilty, an immoral, unethical, flawed man that cannot be trusted with governance of a whole country full of people.
Ishmael Malale // Nov 26, 2008 at 1:33 pm
How you have sex in your house and viral status is not our concern, how many partners you have is also not our business. All we need is policies which will uplift our people from misery. That is our barometer. overly moralistic axe is not for me to wield, but a concede anybody may do so as they wish.
You just made my day!
Would you guys then argue that indiscriminate sex has no social effects whatsoever and that leadership on this is not needed?
Let me see the effects of indiscriminate sex:
1. Viral status: affects health dept, budget, information campaigns.
2. Number of partners affects spread of virus.
3. Orphans increasing due to sick parents dying places burden on health dept, social welfare dept, budget. Not to mention social effects of us not having space in children’s homes, so now children in dire situations less likely to be removed from those because of lack of space due to influx of orphans (I’ve been involved with a children’s home). And social effects of growing up in a children’s home.
4. Sex leads to children, growing up in single parent households with the attendant social and psychological difficulties.
5. Abortions places burden on health dept, budget. Takes a psychological toll.
6. People with bad immune systems are susceptible to other illnesses which place burden on health dept, budget. Not to mention that some of these resultant diseases are infectious and lead to more people getting sick, placing more strains on state and society.
7. Lost work days cost productivity.
This all makes for a fine society and we don’t need any moral compass or moral leadership, is that what you’re saying?
Z, I must just state that it is not immoral to have sex with a consensual partner. As for Zuma he had unprotected sex with HIV infected person. This was reckless and he had apologised. Society has forgiven and hope that he drew important lessons from that experience.
The problem is for one to hold that against him. I do not think we need a President who does not indulge in sex or otherwise. It an individual choice. Precisely why I think I cannot ask any contestant for the Presidency whether they have sex or not in order to determine whether I support their political party or not. That is my point. It is a miscontruction to flow in a different direction to even suggest that sex weakens productivity and the like.
Sex of course has pros and cons. one of which is the possibility of unwanted pregnancy or fatherhood, infection with sexually transmitted diseases and other social ills, which you rightly point out. On the contrary sex also reduces stress and optimises productivity.
Who know it is sex which encouraged you to blog! We must take responsibility for our actions. The long and short of it is that the evidence which emerged in the rape trial does not disqualify Zuma to be President. This the point of view I hold.
The media rumours about the leaders does not affect my choise as the media can say anything about anybody in leadership until authenticated I will not hold that against any leader.
The question of indiscriminate sex in a new topic for tommorow or another day. De Vos will guide. i have never relfected on indiscriminate sex. I simply reacted on one of the point upon which De Vos thought must count on the fitness and propriety of Zuma for President.
I issue of procreation of human society is a paradoxical one.
Society continues to indulge in sex to enlarge famililies and this has inherent dangers. You may test negative and become infected through syringe accident, accident scene.
Your parner may simply have sex with another person get infected to get you in trouble just few days you think of having another child. I suggest we must be simplistic in that regard.
My stance not appeal to your sense of morality. Moralists may be entitled to ask about sexual lives of people and so on, I cannot prevent or oppose that.
12 : 41 Z issue on persecution of Zuma. I have indirectly pointed out that Zuma states that he was targeted by the previous president with the knowledge that he was going to contest for the position of President in the ANC and ultimately the Republic.
It is this political scenario that triggered this unending investigations for several years and the sunsequent historic politico-legal battles. Zuma would not want to step down for the reason that he would be succumbing to the forces that have deliberately sought to destroy his political career. This is what problematises the issue of asking him to step aside and allow another leader to take over. There has been political manouvrering in this Zuma investigation which we seem to turn a blind eye to; which becomes festering blister on our nascent democracy.
I have never professed neutrality on the topic, precisely because Prof had resolved to take a stance in the debate. I hope my point is clear.
Anonymouse, I certaintly am not in the business of impressing you at all. Never, I will not. If the reason for your contribution is to extranct views impressive to you, them society in danger of intellectual extinction by persons of your character.
The sad thing about this debate is that no-one appears prepared to compromise. The various parties to this do not appar willing to admit that on the one hand Jacob Zuma is a flawed character: He has allegations of corruption, rape and now murder (Zulu) hanging over his head. And this is the best the ANC can offer? Siestog!
On the other hand (Sorry Naas!), perhaps the bar is too high. Affirmative action and employment equity policy require that a person need not have the experience, attributes and/or qualifications to do the job (so long as they are of the correct designated group), but merely the potential to do so. So maybe JZ is just another bad (as opposed to the many good) AA/BEE appointment… That said, Ishmael is correct in that there are issues of service delivery and poverty alleviation to address. Is JZ the best man to do so? If not, who is better? If he is, why?
Then, we note that even JZ’s own lawyers have “admitted that he did not prove as “a matter of fact” that the corruption prosecution against him was driven by former president Thabo Mbeki.” http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20081126053908612C810265
Ishmael
I hear the general trend of what you’re saying but:
“I have never professed neutrality on the topic”
You have made an issue about innocent until proven guilty on many occasions and have selectively applied your principle. But it is not you only it is many of Zuma’s supporters who keep crying innocence in regard to him but not in regard to Mbeki.
According to them others dare not decide the propriety of him to hold office based on serious allegations backed up by evidence, which have resulted in the conviction of another person. Yet these same persons called for Mbeki’s head based on mere allegation, his fitness for office was readily decided upon, based on untested circumstantial insinuations (which may turn out to be true, but as it stands now there isn’t even a case!).
In summary:
Nicholson merely alleges political interference (based on one sided conjecture) and Mbeki is suddenly no longer fit or proper for office.
Zuma’s dealings with Shaik lands Shaik in jail, based on real unfabricated financial transactions, favours, a fax and a diary. Yet he is a fit and proper person, and in spite of the hard evidence, the prosecution is not justified but is political.
I noted that a leading legal scholar is alleged to have lied about his academic credentials and took early retirement. I ask for a hot article form Prof. Your peers are under fire. I saw Cowling lingering at the precints of court during the Zuma Apllication itching to give a scholarly untainted analysis of proceedings. Prof an article will do tommorow. let us give a respite and consentrate momentarily on academia crushing each other for simply being critisised for omittng an agenda item. These are professors who ought not to fear criticism and capable of ” robust intellectuality’
The ANC offers the whole lot. Allegations must not crytillise into proven facts simply because the appear in newpapers or court papers. Caution!
When all the glossy words and legal mumbo-jumbo are removed, what remains is that Zuma does not want his day in court because he is afraid he will be found guilty. Period.
His ‘friend’ Shabir Shaik has already been found guilty in what Judge Nicholson – whose judgement the post-Polokwane ANC used as an excuse (albeit poor) to recall Mbeki – said is a bilateral offence. In short, a bilateral offence in the case of Zuma and Shaik means if Shaik is guilty, then Zuma is also guilty of that same offence.
Of course, the law still regards Zuma as innocent because so far he has been successful at avoiding his day in court while telling us that he wants his day in court although he says he did not say he wants his day in court. It’s all so confusing.
What we know and nobody can dispute is that Shaik has been found guilty of a bilateral offence that involves Zuma.
Z I have not declared Mbeki guilty. I do not have the power to venture in such an exercise. It is the real issue we must tackle. The question of the meddling with NPA was not persued in the Application Zuma Made. It arises on the basis on the counter application for striking out of the NPA and application for vexations claims by allegedly Zuma.
The judges are the ones to deal with innocent or otherwise. Mbeki is presumes innocent. His removal might have been propelled by the Judgment, but there were political considerations at play.
He was no longer prepared to co-operate with the ANC. As for me he also deserved to be allowed a moment to lick his wounds of the embarassment of being kicked out at such a short notice. He deserved to be relieved for poliical reasons : unwillingness to partake in organisational activities; fixated with polokwane loss of power.
Tony, it is not as simplistic as you say it. I can’t help it, you are raising you own point. The law does not force us to go to court if there are crucial issued that require resolution of the courts. You may call it stalling but the law allows us to challenge illegal actions of NPA and so on. The NPA has also exercised its right to appeal. The working of our law Tony. Period!
Ishmael
I have quoted you where you clearly talked about implicit guilt on Mbeki’s side:
““The real issue… is that the erstwile president was resolved to persecute Zuma through the NPA.””. Which you never addressed directly. And I wonder if you were to honestly answer to yourself whether you believe Mbeki is guilty, what the answer would be, and then ask yourself if you consider him fit and proper based on that belief.
My final point:
“Why do we want to destroy Zuma’s political career when the court have not pronounced him unfit to govern! I say the moralistic flag is prejudicial to the potential president.”
Do you also say that the morailistic flag you just gave (”unwillingness to partake in organisational activities; fixated with polokwane loss of power.”) are prejudicial to the previous president? I don’t see any court deciding Mbeki guilty, there was no legal impediment to him staying on as president, your very argument for Zuma. Seems to me a case of when the shoe fits…
That question is precisely to be resolved by courts. My believe on that is not crucial. The answer recites in facts not hypothetical answers which I may hold on the basis of interaction with media reports and terse court papers.
Ishmael, I generally very much enjoy your posts, but I am getting tired of hearing this completely uncritical support of JZ especially in light of the recent goings on.
Can I just say briefly, as a woman who was almost party to a marriage that had the potential to be polygamous, if my husband was putting my health and his other wives health at risk by screwing around with a woman he knew to be positive because he believed that his rate of contraction of the virus from the sex was sufficiently low enough to risk, I’d take a knife and I’d make sure he never got to sleep with any other women! So you and Mel, whom you’ve claimed to be a Public Lawyer, can shut right up with the nonsense that screwing around behind Zulu women’s backs and risking their lives to a deadly incurable disease in the process is “cultural”.
IT IS NOT!
z, thanks for the piece on the name calling. It is a sobering thought. I wonder if the language is being deliberately invoked given the refugees in our midst.
Pierre, thanks for linking to the article.
“The initial decision by Bulelani Ngcuka to announce that there was a prima facie case against Zuma but that he would not be charged constitutes a grave dereliction of duty on the part of Ngcuka and created the perception that he was not making decisions about who to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice – as he was constitutionally required to do.”
What a wonderful bit of sophistry to distract the reader from the crux of the matter because that is exactly where Zuma gets smeared with the “corruption charge” and then trailed by proxy via the Shaik trail in the media. Cause logic tell you – that if Bulelani Ngcuka had some solid evidence or even suspected Zuma he would simply have said that they are still investigating other possible corruption charges and would have proceeded to do just that. Instead – by just implicating Zuma he set up the stage for the famous “generally corrupt relationship” remark falsely attributed by the media to Judge Squires.
Twelve days later Zuma is fired by Mbeki and guess who comes waltzing in to replace Zuma as deputy president none other than Bulelani Ngcuka’s darling wife – Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka. Now how is that for “a mutually beneficial symbiosis” if there ever was one LOL None other than Mrs. Oilgate herself but bizarrely enough our media and our constitutional experts are dumb-struck struck with collective selective amnesia just as they had somehow “forgotten” how Mbeki had tried to frame Sexwale, Ramaphosa and Phosa just a year or two before.
Mpho,
I didn’t even consider that! Yes, he showed a reckless regard for the health of his many other wives! What about them – he did not even have any consideration for them. Another strike against him.
Ishmael
You write about policies that will uplift our people out of their misery. One thing that’s causing a lot of misery for our people is the spread of HIV/AIDS. How can Zuma even begin to come up with policies that will counter this problem when he himself is engaging in practices that could increase the likelyhood of the spread of the disease? Your response to the many flaws of Zuma is to say that he apologised and we should move on. I am afraid that that’s not good enough.
sharika
“One thing that’s causing a lot of misery for our people is the spread of HIV/AIDS.’
And guess who immediately gets the boot as minister of health when Zuma took over ? None other than Mbeki’s AIDS-denialist crony Mantho Tshabalala-Msimang.
Ozoneblue, oh dear, you have not been following this Blog closely or you would have remembered I made many of the points you raise about Mbeki in this (http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=429) and many other posts.
You are also spectacularly and ignorantly wrong about the origins of the public perception that Zuma is corrupt. The fact that Zuma is seen as corrupt does not stem mainnly from the announcement by Ngcuka or even from the media statement about the generally corrupt relationship, but from – well, I know you do not like to think about it but I am required to raise this – several PROVEN facts: These are: (1) Zuma took lots and lots of money from a convicted crook; (2) Zuma did favours for that crook; (3) An encrypted fax confirmed that a bribe was to be paid to Zuma who in turn would help to cover up the arms deal; (4) This bribe was indeed paid to Zuma; ( 5) Zuma met with the author of the fax and the payer of the bribe, then made a careful denial about this in Parliament and then tried to prevent the diary which proves this meeting from being brought to SA from Mauritius; (6) Zuma falsely claimed to Parliament that money given to him by the crook was a lone and presented to Parliament a fake loan agreement to cover his tracks (why do you think he resigned from Parliament after the Shaik judgment? If he had not he would have been found guilty by the ethics committee of a serious breach of the code of ethics); (7) Zuma has claimed that he knows more about the arms deal and will reveal all if charged, thus admitting that there was wrongdoing and that he was covering this up; (8) two different courts have found that “an overriding corrupt relationship” existed between Zuma and the crook.
Do you dispute these facts – all proven in court? If yes, on what basis (apart from some belief not related to evidence and facts and more related to the tooth fairy) do you dispute them? If not, what do you think these facts say about Zuma’s ethical standards? Why do you support a man proven to have done these things and proven to have been involved in these matters? Are you corrupt yourself? Are you planning to be corrupt in the future? Do you condone this kind of behaviour by anyone? Why? Don’t you respect poor black South Africans who depend for the betterment of their own lives on a non-corrupt government? Would you have felt the same way if the vast majority of victims of corruption were rich and white? Does this make you a person with internalised racism in you heart? Just wondering……
Mpho
Pleasure. It is a topic dear to my heart, because I would like to see us rise above the conflicts of the past on our continent. I have also had close contact with a Rwandan genocide survivor (a tutsi who lost both parents), since the violence started. His spirit is indomitable!
Thanks for sharing the personal experience, very enlightening, I’m always happy to see your take as I think you bring your very own perspective to things. I must say that I can’t picture you in such a marriage, since you have such a strong personality!
A point of clarification on my first post above about the name calling: The interahamwe of Rwanda who perpetrated the genocide, used name calling as a gradual dehumanisation approach in which they called the tutsi’s cockroaches.This in turn made it easier to kill, after the constant indoctrination process they ran against the tutsi.
See my post above for parallel with ANCYL and Zuma.
On the topic of Zuma and HIV, we should keep in mind that he waa the chairperson of the National AIDS council. He made speeches about HIV, go and read them and then compare with the rape trial comments. This is a strong indictment on his leadership and capacity to absorb and believe in the principles of the cause he is leading.
Ishmael wrote: “The law does not force us to go to court if there are crucial issued that require resolution of the courts. You may call it stalling but the law allows us to challenge illegal actions of NPA and so on….”
That is precisely my point. Zuma is using all these legal tactics to delay or even avoid having his day in court. Even you will agree with me that challenging the NPA on the violation of his rights to make representations in the case of a review of previous decision by the NDPP not to prosecute, is a time wasting tactic.
Judge Nicholson, although he ruled in favor of Jacob Zuma, did not close the door for the NPA to recharge Zuma. But the NPA will have to do so properly by affording Zuma the opportunity to make representations.
This is what Zuma wants – anything to stall or even avoid having his day in court until he becomes President of the Republic of South Africa – then if the ANC gets the right percentage after elections, the Constitution of the country is at their disposal and democracy at their mercy.
pierre
Congratulations – it appears you have the case very much sown up done and dusted – and that you Internet constitutional experts should in fact get a “real job” at the NPA. Why didn’t you submit all your incontrovertible evidence to Ngcuka back in 2003 – because what you have mentioned there is exactly the case that Ngcuka made against Shaik but for some inexplicable reason Ngcuka thought the case was “unwinnable”.
Or perhaps it has something to do with having to put Mbeki in the witness stand. Remember how Zuma just kept on delaying the case :
“The state lodged papers in the Durban High Court on Wednesday applying for a postponement of the trial of Zuma and French arms company Thint, and argument will be heard in the Pietermaritzburg High Court when the trial begins on July 31. Both Zuma and Thint have previously indicated they would oppose a postponement.
Zuma told the Daily Dispatch this week that any delays “would give rise to a lot of suspicions. Justice delayed is justice denied.”
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-07-21-zuma-trial-well-put-mbeki-on-the-stand
Damn interesting article that – perhaps you should read it.
You ask;
“Why do you support a man proven to have done these things and proven to have been involved in these matters? Are you corrupt yourself?”
I support Zuma because I can see clear and unambiguous evidence of him being singled out and victimized for political purposes. I support Zuma because if you had read Andrew Feinstein’s book you would know that Zuma is very little else but a fall guy. I’m all for good “ethics and morals” in government and business but then those guidelines for ethics and morals must be applied equally and transparently to all players involved. I want to know what Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela, Trevor Manula and Thabo Mbeki’s roles where in the award BAE contract. I want to know why the BAE/Saudi arms scandal investigation in the UK was closed down because it was deemed “not in the best interest of the public”.
And I’m not interested in Jacob Zuma’s sex life. As far as I’m concerned what he did in the privacy of his bedroom has absolutely nothing to do with me or his ability to lead our nation. You should go and look it up sometime : it is under section 14. I hope I have answered all your questions.
Ozoneblue, I rest my case. Your defense is: others are also corrupt so Zuma being corrupt can be excused. This is a very perverted sense of ethics. I note you have not disputed any of the facts presented by me. I don’t blame you because they are indisputable. After all, these facts were found to be true by all the courts hearing the Shaik matter. The only option – given these proven facts – is then to blame others to try and divert attention from the fact that Zuma has a very serious case of corruption to answer. A case he has declined to answer all these years. Its so nice having a villain like Mbeki because it allows you to avoid the truth, namely that your hero was involved in things that – given what we know – presents at least a prima facie case of corruption against him. Nothing you have said detracts from this very real and very troubling fact. But I suppose facts are not your strong point….
ozoneblue
You selectively quote the article about a postponement from the NPA. Did you even read why they wanted to postpone? Here it is:
“is seeking a postponement because it remains unclear about whether evidence crucial to the prosecution case can be used in court. It is awaiting the outcome of a legal process in Mauritius and appeals in the South African courts relating to documents seized during Scorpions raids on Zuma and his associates last year.”
That was postponement was Zuma’s own fault.
“I can see clear and unambiguous evidence”
In which court was Feinstein’s book tested as evidence?
On a side note: Remember the timing in Feinstein’s book, of when Zuma stopped returning his calls and stopped supporting him in the investigation (as an interesting thought, not clear and unambiguous evidence).
Hey Ishmael, I admirer your resilience broer!
Bongs – Yes he is like a Jack-in-the-Box, isn’t he.
Everything on this blog is about Zuma this Zuma that, you really love the guy
Pierre De Vos // Nov 27, 2008 at 8:21 am
Please stick to the issues and stop labeling TM as a villain just because you are struggling to prove your point and win opponents over.
What you are doing is exactly what you accuse them of doing.
hi lindelani! we love the guy (there is a thin line between love and hate after all), but nothing comes close to your undying prepared to kill adoration of the man. I do hope in the end that he delivers to his cult of true believers, and the rest of us too. And I hope he sticks to his one term as promised…. that is if he manages to stay out of jail first.
While the world and his wife have been busy examining here whether JZ is a fit and proper person to be President (not that this is a constitutional requirement for the office), in another part of the wood it was made to appear to the incautious reader that JZ’s rape trial in 2006 had resulted in an acquittal on the ground of no sufficient evidence that the sex had been non-consensual. As it happens – and contrary to assertions to the contrary by Tony in Virginia – the learned judge made a positive finding that the sex had been consensual. JZ is carrying quite enough baggage without having to suffer the opprobrium of a “non-proven” verdict in the one case of his that has come to trial.
May I ask you, Dontgetmestarted, what is the sufficient evidence that the judge found?
Please don’t tell me about the young girl’s history of false accusations, because if we are to rely on that history, it would mean that that girl will never ever be raped in her life.
Dear dontgetmestarted,
I have already responded to your eloquent response and conceded that I was wrong. However, to my knowledge, my allegations were never used anywhere in this discourse (and previous discussions if I may add) as proof (or a part thereof) of Zuma’s unfitness for the Presidency.
The Prof and others have stated facts that are still to be refuted by those who believe Zuma is a poor innocent persecuted unjustly individual who is presidential material.
Dear Nombuso, your question is irrelevant to the issue I was addressing and I do not pretend to evaluate the judge’s finding of fact. Debate has been raging here as to whether JZ will (or ought to be) be brought to trial on various allegations of pecuniary corruption. I was merely observing that in one respect, at least, the outcome of the one criminal trial to which JZ has been subjected was misdescribed in here without anyone, apparently, noticing.
However, I am very much surprised to see you persist with the idea that the complainant was a “young girl”. What is your basis for using that particular English phrase?
Charges against Ramatlhodi dropped
Sapa Published:Nov 27, 2008
Charges of corruption against former Limpopo premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi have been dropped, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said today.
“The intended prosecution of the Scorpions of the former Limpopo premier have been discontinued,” NPA spokesman Tlali Tlali said.
“[The decision was informed by and based on a number of considerations including the NPA guidelines on prosecutions as well as on the prosecution.”
Tlali said it “doesn’t matter” when the decision was taken.
On Wednesday the African National Congress said it had received a letter from the NPA confirming all charges relating to alleged corrupt practices by Ramatlhodi had been dropped.
Spokesman Brian Sokotu said the charges had dragged on for the past four years and had caused irreparable personal harm to Ramatlhodi and his family.
He said the decision vindicated the ANC and its long-held position that the NPA was nothing but an instrument used to settle personal scores.
“We have always maintained that Comrade Ramatlhodi was merely being prevented from… joining the bar and practising as an advocate,” said Sokotu.
Peter,
So you expect him to deliver for you as well? funny
He can say one term but we won’t allow that to happen we want him to rule until the end of his life
Dear Tony, I am prepared to accept what you say (without, I might add, going over the posts with a fine tooth-comb), but the status of JZ as an “unconvicted” rapist has been ventilated most recently by elements within COPE, all as discussed under another thread.
Having said that, I will add that the opening line by PdV in the instant article (”Mr Jacob Zuma has not been found guilty of any crime”) might have had unintended resonances with those who had thought the finding in the rape case was not, as we are all now agreed, it was.
Prof. I thought you will stop campaigning for your favourite opposition and enrich your article on gays and lesbians as the CC has lowered the age for sexual gratification for same -sex lover and/or partners.
The Same-sex partners are now broad to the same shores of sexual gratification with heterosexual partners at a tender age of 16. This will permit exploration of sexual orientation by persons before the gushing winds of historical stereotypical differentaition which is even embraced by the CC.
You would remember that recently the CC had found it necessary to have unconsensual penile intercourse with a man through the anus is indecent assault – with a female rape. Yet the area of assault is the identical and served the same purpose. I refer to the anus here. Is this differentiation rational ? The reasoning is that women are the most brutalised and socially subjugated section of society )together with children), thus dignity impaired. The incremental diminishment of diffentiation gravitates towards eradication of irrational and unjustifed legislative and legal jurisprudential differentiation. It this not a good goal?
Don’t you think inviting a scholar to educate us more on AIDS would do. Surely our society does not depend on Zuma to roll back the frontiers of this scourge ravaging our society, since it is our sexual recklessness with contributes more!
Even if Zuma is elected with a two third majority in the slleve of the ANC, the courts will simply usurp the function of the Legislature with the suppurating prowess of your unsolicited generous legal help.
Before you declare love for Motlante, his decisions are property of collective wisdom of leaders amongst whom we cout your enemy No 1, Zuma.
Many scholars some of whom had lectured me and quite good in vaious fields of law were palpably silent during the dragonian times of PW Botha.
Can you sent me a single small manuscript your were disentitled to reproduce where you actively criticised the Crocodile, PW Botha.
I am certain that some of your students are quite terrified to brutally engage some outrageous remarks you utter, mistakenly of course, for fear of loss of marks. Is that not an instinctive recoil?
I wish the elections pass tomorrow !
Ishmael Malale
Earlier in this post reference was made to Wouter Basson, please share your views on this man.
My friend Ishmael, I find it difficult to follow your arguments: there are too many words, not enough meaning, it seems to me. When one takes a creative writing course the first thing they tell you is that “less is more”. Not a bad lesson to learn.
In any case, about the Groot Krokodil, PW Botha. In 1987 I was a student at Stellenbosch University. PW Botha was the chancellor of the University. I was the deputy editor of the student newspaper (the SRC vetoed my appointment as editor because of my so called radical views) and wrote a column in every edition railing against the apartheid government, pointing out what lying, thieving thugs they were (so you see, I have been doing this kind of thing for quite a while!). One column was titled: “Die narre hou weer sirkus.” (The clowns are having a circus). In that column I criticised PW Botha and compared him to a dangerous clown. The Vice Chancellor called me to his office and asked me to give him one good reason why I should not be expelled from the University. I told him that it was not my problem if PW was so thinned skinned and as a politician he could not expect not to be criticised and ridiculed. The Vice Chancellor was not happy (I recall at some point he threw his pen against the wall, spit dribbling from his mouth). I was not expelled because the University feared bad publicity. That night the editors of the newspaper had a huge party, celebrating our very small victory against the bigots in charge. I had a terrible hangover the next day but we all thought it great fun. More or less the same thing happened when I railed against the University banning the End Conscription Campaign (of which I was a member) from campus. So Ishmael, I was no Robert McBride, but I have been fairly consistent about respect for human rights, having fun along the way. I am well aware my white skin and relative privilege made all this laughably irrelevant and protected me from any harm. Not claiming to he a hero or anything, but you did ask, so I thought I’d share the story. For what its worth. Have a nice day!
pierre
“Your defense is: others are also corrupt so Zuma being corrupt can be excused. This is a very perverted sense of ethics. I note you have not disputed any of the facts presented by me. I don’t blame you because they are indisputable. After all, these facts were found to be true by all the courts hearing the Shaik matter.”
Nothing of that sort. What you are doing here is trailing JZ by proxy. Not only unconstitutional by grossly unfair. Sies – you of all people should now better.
JZ’s defense has not even cross examined or called their own witnesses yet. One of those witnesses, Thabo Mbeki, refused to testify. Why is it relevant – because to prove the corruption charge the prosecutor must prove that JZ did in fact deliver some favors like shielding Thales form investigation in return for the alleged bribes. The main evidence submitted for this was the letter to Woods attacking the Heath commission, signed by Zuma yet allegedly written by Mbeki – go figure.
The wanton violations to Zuma’s constitutional rights in this 5 year long mock trail are summarised here http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=110404&sn=Detail.
Please read it cause it could help you to get a clue.
I watched a special assignment last night
Just a friend reminder to all our black brothers
have you seen how frustrated whites get when they see a successful black person?
Have you see how how happy and superiour they get when seeing on the streets begging?
Like it or not white people hate us and I personally very much HATE them too
and nothing will change
lindelani, you Zulu racist, you – You are also welcome to go comment on the new twist to the morality of Zuma debate on ANC, Know your Constitution below. Ozoneblue, you too. Anybody is.
The perfect scam needs a ‘Patsy’ I feel Zuma was the “Arms Deal Patsy’.
He can wiggle as much as he likes the end result will be the same, President or no.
Perhaps to get the message to the less educated in the population we should talk in houses, schools and hospitals instead of millions,
Shaik arranged a bribe of 50 or 100 houses that won’t be built in Orlando every year for Zuma.
Or perhaps a High School in Ndevana was paid to Zuma this year.
Maybe Zuma’s trial is costing a Hospital in Orange Farm.
The roads in Kwa Mashu will have to wait while we make the conditions right for Zuma to be President.
Then see if they understand or not.
lindelani maseko // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Big boy lindelani,
How I have missed you kid. I love it when you whistle through your zulu sphincter ani. Take this dude : Most whites are superior to you and like it or not nothing will change……oooops now I’ve made a big mistake, I’ve stooped to your level.
I love to see a successful black man, it shows that some of your brothers can actually survive without the white-boss. I am so sick and tired of seeing useless blacks standing on the street corners and when I drive past them, they point at their empty stomachs. (I guess in their minds it goes something like this: you owe me you white bastard). On the other hand, I am sure you get absolute thrills seeing whites beg on the streets.
I’ve said before, I think some big white “boerseun” hurt you when you were a small picaninny. Grow up, be smart, loose your hatred, you are way to young to be so bitter.
To all the other constitutional experts, may I marry a second wife or two or three ?
An now for something completely different.
“THE soon-to-be disbanded Scorpions yesterday raided seven premises countrywide, some linked to a defence firm jointly owned by former armed forces chief Siphiwe Nyanda and businessman Fana Hlongwane.
The raids are related to an arms deal fraud and corruption investigation into a £1.5-billion (about R21-billion) fighter jet purchase.
Teams of Scorpions investigators descended on the offices and homes of Hlongwane, Zimbabwean arms dealer John Bredenkamp and others thought to be involved in ensuring BAe Systems got the contract to supply the SANDF with 24 Hawk 100 trainer jets and 28 Gripen fighter jets at a bid higher than that of competitors during the 1999 deal.
At the time, Hlongwane was an adviser to the late defence minister, Joe Modise, on whose watch the controversial multibillion-rand arms deal was concluded.”
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=893238
And that is not all folks, the best is yet to come:
“The BAe Systems contracts are worth more than R15 billion.
They are alleged by opponents of the deal to have paid at least one Mbeki cabinet minister around R10 million.
The premises that were raided include those of Zimbabwe arms dealer Johan Bredenkamp, a consultant to BAe and an arms supplier to Mugabe, and Fana Hlongwane, another BAe consultant.
However sources in the NPA told The Citizen five other premises were also raided.
Former ANC member Andrew Feinstein earlier in the year confirmed that the Serious Fraud Office had been in touch with him and that he had been co-operating with their inquiry”
http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=84066,1,22
As Bobby Dylan said – the times they are a changing.
Bob Dylan also said this –
…
Yes, ‘n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
I don’t mind successful black people, as long as they deserve it.
Come to think of it, I don’t mind any successful person if they deserve it.
Lindelani, could it perhaps be that you’re looking for excuses for your own lack of success? I know people who, like you, are very brave in internet forums, where they can hide who they are in real life.
Often they’re introverted and jealous of other people, but too cowardly to stand up for themselves, so they invent an alter-ego online, and then act like a tough guy, bullying people and saying outrageous things to shock and offend, because they know in real life they don’t stand a chance.
They also pretend to be much more important and successful than they really are – bookkeepers pretend they’re CEOs, and legal secretaries pretend they’re attorneys. There’s nothing wrong with those jobs of course, but sometimes people feel inferior to others with more degrees, titles, etc.
Just some thoughts Lindelani, which you’ll probably disregard because I’m a white racist who would kill all black people if I could and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Get a life dude. Seriously.
Ishmael Malale wrote: “…The ANC is not being voted on the basis of personalities but policy imperatives and its historical significance as a political liberator. We still need to be liberated from economic bondage that is why we still regard the ANC as a liberation movement. …”
I will agree with you on the one point that ANC is voted on the basis of its historical significance as a political liberator. But I agree with Mpho Mogadingoane that personalities drive the choices people make about who should be the next ANC leader – consequently the next President of South Africa (as things stand currently). As ANC supporters, we vote mostly with our hearts and less with our heads.
Allow me to give an example. We have been made to believe that Zuma is pro-labour and pro-poor, while Mbeki is pro-business and pro-rich.
Zuma, on his overseas expeditions, has always assured the foreign investors that the current policies are not going to change. He has been at pains at almost all one-on-one interviews in the country and overseas to explain that the policies of the ANC are a collective and not individual. What this means therefore is that Mbeki has been implementing ANC (collective) policies, and not his won. (Why does he get the blame?)
If these policies are not going to change (according to Zuma), why then the view that Zuma is pro-poor and pro-labour while Mbeki is pro-rich and business? If the policies are the same, one can only conclude that the difference is on personalities.
Zuma is running and winning support mostly on sympathy (emotions).
Erratum:
“…and not his won” should read “…and not his own.”
And I return to the madness I expected to find. Again Zuma isn’t guilty in terms of law because there has been no trial to determine that. Here we should ALL remember that the public have their own views of what is right or wrong and they aren’t always in keeping with the law. Zuma may still be president even though he is morally bankrupt.
There is a disturbing trend for Ishmael to refer to sex lately. I think he’s not getting enough, someone pleases help him out. I find his suggestions rather odd because criminal law and the law of delict BOTH provide certain guidelines for us to live in a peaceful and ordered society. These guidelines are taken from morals essetially. The state therefore does exert some dort of morality. How this is done is another debate, maybe you should look up on the Hart-delvin debate. Such morality would be the age when one marries, crimes of murder, rape, theft, statutory rape. Also delicts such as those forming part of the actio iniuriarum and what qualifies as a legal duty stems from a moral duty. The law then governs how you have sex with your wife… You can’t force her (rape) and you can’t live out your fetish to beat her within an inch of her life just for your pleasure.
That being said, are there any ORIGINAL reasons why Zuma’s lack of legal guilt for a matter that the courts have not decided on, should compel the thinking public that Zuma is a good man who’s of the finest morals and would lead this country forward in terms of development and a moral regeneration?