Having said that all, Mokotedi Mpshe is, to my mind, just making sure that he remains in the running to become the permanent NDPP after the election. I mean, when he was appointed acting NDPP, he employed a panel of ‘independent’ experts to check into the Selebi matter, and ‘sommer’ also re-evaluated the Zuma thing and, hey Presto! Bothe were then found fit to be prosecuted. Surely the NIA phone-tapping records must then already have been available? One wonders whether Nicholso J did not know about those before he handed down his sorry judgment that there was politrical meddling. And, yes, the SCA did suggest that ‘political meddling’, if found to be present, would not really have been relevant in deciding the issue at hand. But Julius’ fantasy of people moving in the dark, which has been pounced upon by senior ANC members, really seems to have jolted the imagination of many, including ‘Teddy’ Mpshe – so paving the way for JZ to stay out of court without having to disclose the so-called ‘truth’ about who the real ‘movers-and-shakers’ in the Arms Deal were and to become the next President. (By the way, doesn’t his smiling face on the election placards (without the shower) remind one of that TV ad, “I wanna be a Simba Chippy!” – any relation to Chippy Shaik?)

Again – sorry for all the typos and language errors – still struggling with the German and Nama I again polished in Namibia.

“In the US it is well documented that the intelligence agencies provided inaccurate information about IRAQ which led to the US invasion(to which the UK played a pivotal role) , they recently had a senator involved in corruption trying to buy his seat(Barack Obama’s old seat nogals).”

I’m affraid there absolutely no comparison. Not only did the CIA chief in charge loose his job **during Bush’s term in office ** after a lengthy congressional hearing, but also the senior official mentioned trying to sell Obama seat did not get his way, and was so hounded by all and sundry that he gave up, in spite of his impressive thick skin.

Try some better examples please. Waiting…

The difference can be said is the number of incidents or perhaps their brazen nature or severity or even who commits them (even though the Royal family is gaffe prone & over and under sexed they have not been involved in many corruption scandals as far as I know). Perhaps.

But countries like India and China also have a lot of corruption. But its not eating at their body politic as ours is.

But India and particularly China punishes corrupt officials very harshly – the death penalty is quite common.

That is the key difference. And it is multi-faceted. Not only is our state not too concerned about it (unless a political opponent is involved) but more importantly – the vast majority of citizenry does not think less of a politician or powerful person for making a packet through corrupt dealings.

I make this assertion based on the book “The criminalisation of the state in Africa” by Bayart et al recently recommended by none other than snappy dresser & fast mind Xolela Mangcu.

In it it claims that appreciation of the ‘trickster’ is an Africa wide problem, but has a specific chapter on South Africa.

This is due to a number of reasons, which I wont expand on here now, save to say that its shocking that we have some of the best universities on the continent., that have not studied this.

Instead of studying behaviour patterns & attitudes in our society they have for the last 40 years swallowed hook line and sinker all the Western produced narratives of neo-colonialism as the explanation of all Africa’s ills.

Maybe the “plot” shoe would be on the other foot…

As a working hypothesis, how’s this:

Through some combination of threat, political persuasion and / or inducement, Mr Mpshe was “persuaded” to discontinue the prosecution. Mr Hofmeyer may already have been influenced (did he know about the tapes earlier?) prior to the fact, so that he could sway Mpshe.

They were hoping for a quick “in-and-out” announcement, possibly without giving specific reasons, or maybe making vague references to “national interest”. Then the story was leaked. We don’t know that Mo Shaik got it from the Zuma camp – he claimed to have received general sms’s that were doing the rounds. Anyway, Business Day was breaking the story (possibly from a disgruntled member of the NPA).

The outcry , and subsequent analysis (including our dear Prof), gave the NPA pause. The shock value of the tapes was being played up, but the pressure now came from both sides.

So, our clever little Mr Hofmeyer went and did some research to find anyone saying anything nasty about abuse of process that they could use. as had been pointed out here and elsewhere, the NPA Act and the policy gave nothing to work with. I also wonder whether Adv Heath had a talk to Adv Hofmeyer.

Then came the announcement, and immediately the Zuma clique in the ANC started to spin the “inncent” line (Mr Phosa and Mr Zuma lying to the nation abpout what had happened). The ANC knew beforehand because they were telling us (via Ms Duarte among others) that we should “respect” the decision – code for “shut up, or we will accuse you of undermining the rule of law”.

The other “spin” is that those who challenge the decision are merely demonstrating their “hatred” of Mr Zuma.