This blog deals with political and social issues in South Africa, mostly from the perspective of Constitutional Law. Written by Pierre de Vos
The SA Communist Party said it was convinced that the “persecution” of Zuma was a “politically inspired affair”.
Cosatu does not believe however that today’s judgment changes the basic facts, which are that it will be impossible for the ANC president to have a fair trial given the long delays and the trial by media,” it said.
“Cosatu remains convinced that the whole prosecution process has been politically motivated and will continue to demand the dropping of all charges.”
Malema is no innocent victim. But he has been punished for his role in expressing opinion, not in preventing others from having their say. He is punished for saying that Mbeki cares more about Africans than Zuma — not for storming a stage in 2010 to try to bully Justice Minister Jeff Radebe. He is sanctioned for remarks on Botswana that were crass and embarrassing but no threat to democracy in the ANC — not for driving his opponents out of a hall in Limpopo or ignoring a court order in the Eastern Cape. The message is clear: ANC members can bully and bend the rules, as long as they don’t criticise leaders or deviate from policy. This insistence that the problem is not unfair contest but contest itself will worsen the problem. – Steven Friedman in Business Day
Archive for Quote of the week »Archive for New from Seminar Room »Archive for New from Updates »
ANC president to have a fair trial given the long delays and the trial by media,” it said.
…………….
Well in all fairness the delays were caused by Zuma so that would really be there own fault for playing such a tactic
Cosatu remains convinced that the whole prosecution process has been politically motivated and will continue to demand the dropping of all charges.
………………
Of cause they would say that, them and the ANCYL will call for a polictical solution to a political “problem” which by the way the ANC caused but with all legal options running out for ZUMA he will have to face charges to his name. I just wonder how many fat cats are going to be implecated
This is what I cant understand from the ANC maybe Mvu can explain. Cos this really blows my mind as they think he is “innocent” well prove it?? its as simple as that. This whole court thing in my eyes is a public stunt for Zuma to whirl up support and dance and sing.
I need to ask what do you think the implications are going to be if Zuma becomes the state head? Honestly will investors come rolling in?
I mean if the SCA with there judgement cant show how reckless the ANC has been then the only thing left is to paint them a picture but Zapiro has tried that so really no hope there.
This whole debacle reeks of populistic propaganda.
My question is the following :
The constitution states that justice and appearing in court etc must be as expedient as possible… what are the chances that ZUMA will now ask for a permenant stay of prosecution based on the fact this matter has been dragging on for years now and he wont get a fair trail because any judge out there has been “sullied” and their judgement “clouded” by months upon months of media frenzy and coverage…
On a personal note though…when this matter broke ZUMA asked for his day in court so he could clear his name, yes innocent till proven guilty…in my eyes, if he was so “innocent” then why is he so scared to go to court…innocent people know there is no proof against them…ZUMA knows he is facing the lockup…and personally, I for one wouldnt mind seeing him there…
Statement of former President Thabo Mbeki on the Judgement of the
Supreme Court of Appeal.
January 13, 20.09
Following careful consideration of yesterday’s Judgement of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in the matter between the National Director of Public Prosecutions and African National Congress President, Mr. Jacob Zuma, former President Thabo Mbeki wishes to make the following observations:
1. I welcome and accept the determinations made by the SCA that Judge Nicholson had no facts before him to suggest that I and the Cabinet interfered with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in its consideration of matters relating to Mr Jacob Zuma.
2. In my Address to the Nation on September 21, 20.0.8, I said: “I would like to restate the position of Cabinet on the inferences made by the Honourable Judge Chris Nicholson that the President and Cabinet have interfered in the work of the National Prosecuting Authority. Again I would like to state this categorically that we have never done this…In this context it is most unfortunate that gratuitous suggestions have been made seeking to impugn the integrity of those of us who have been privileged to serve in our country’s National Executive.”
3. I agree with the SCA where it says Judge Nicholson made “gratuitous findings against persons who were not called upon to defend themselves…(failed) to distinguish between allegation, fact and suspicion, and …(transgressed) the proper boundaries between judicial, executive and legislative functions.”
4. Accordingly, I also agree with the SCA where it says, “Most of the allegations (of political interference) were not only irrelevant but they were gratuitous and based on suspicion and not on fact.”
5. I also agree with the SCA where it says, “Once again, the ‘strategy’ involving Dr Maduna, Mr Mbeki and all the other members of cabinet as well as the causal connection between the Ngcuka decision and Mr Mbeki and the cabinet as found by the trial judge were not based on any evidence or allegation. They were instead part of the judge’s own conspiracy theory and not one advanced by Mr Zuma.”
6. Like the SCA, we had found the manner by which Judge Nicholson made negative findings against the President and the Cabinet “incomprehensible”.
7. We intervened in the NPA appeal to the SCA because we wanted to correct the unfair and unwarranted inferences made by Judge Nicholson against us, and as the SCA said, we “had ample reason to be upset by the reasons in the judgement which cast aspersions on (us) without regard to (our) basic rights to be treated fairly.” The SCA ruling has vindicated us.
8. It seems to me that the unacceptable practice of propagation of deliberate falsehoods to attain various objectives is becoming entrenched in our country. I am pleased that the SCA has provided firm leadership in this regard by insisting that nobody’s integrity should be impugned on the basis of untested allegations.
@Pierre de Vos,
please pay particular attention to point 8.
“nobody’s integrity should be impugned on the basis of untested allegations
Says the man who fired Zuma because of a lie perpetuated in the media.
“The SA Communist Party said it was convinced that the “persecution” of Zuma was a “politically inspired affair.”
I would imagine the NIA document leaked to Business Day will cast more light on the issue if we can just get passed these damned restrictions imposed by matters of “national security”.
“The National Intelligence Agency has confirmed a document produced by the Young Communist League at a media briefing is the so-called Document X that the Business Day newspaper has been banned from publishing.
The NIA has imposed a blackout on comments made by the League’s National Secretary Buti Manamela in relation to the document which he says shows the agency is being abused in a plot against ANC President Jacob Zuma. The NIA says the document Manamela referred to is the correspondence the Johannesburg High Court this week prevented the Business Day from running with.
The agency argued in its court application that Document X could pose a threat to national security. The NIA’s Lorna Daniels says it is yet to decide what action to take against Manamela.”
Cde Mbeki plays double standards, here is the man who fired JZ way before he was charged, and subsequently suspended the man who tried to charge his gangboss friend. What a hypocrite-claiming they are “vindicated”, by what? Since the judgement simply said the allegations are simply not “tested”,i.e they could be both true/false. Not to mention that his sorry application was thrown out of the window.
For the record, Zuma was asked to step down pending the outcome of investigations, but refused.
Such is the integrity of the man. By the way, which part of prima facie evidence doesn’t mean that it is reasonable to suspect Jacob Zuma of corruption, racketeering and fraud? I hate to admit it, but Mbeki was right!
Consider, if you will, that the ‘Arms Deal’ was a scam to benefit ANC coffers (war chest), that Shaik saw an opportunity to skim off the top by using Zuma’s name.
If the ANC powers then found out about this and decided to make an example of Shaik at the same time make Zuma a patsy.
This would result in throwing the attention off the ball of an increasing clamour for an investigation into the ‘Arms Deal’
Would that not be considered ‘a political interference’?
slumdweller
I think you might be on to something there. Perhaps it was not a “scam” as such but nevertheless an entirely inappropriate and compromised “deal” for purposes that transcended the stated intention of upgrading our country’s defense capacity.