Thanks for the info.

“The CC however reserved for future judgment whether a fresh prosecution on these charges will offend the double jeopardy protection afforded by s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution because, even though the charges were quashed before plea and, even though Basson was therefore never in jeopardy of a conviction on those counts, evidence was led on those counts as well, enabling the court to make a finding on the body of evidence. See paras [248]-[259], [264] of the judgment. Two weeks later, according to media reports in Beeld, Sunday Times and SABC News, the NPA abandoned its right to prosecute Basson on those charges because it felt (unjustified, so it is submitted) that the double jeopardy principle would work in Basson’s favour and no reasonable prospect of a conviction existed. Thus, even though the CC practically ‘challenged’ the NPA to charge Basson again on those counts that were quashed and, if the question of double jeopardy became relevant, to present argument that Basson’s rights in s 35(3)(m) of the Constitution were not infringed or, if infringed, that the infringement amounted to a legitimate limitation of rights in terms of s 36 of the Constitution, the NPA decided not to pursue the matter further.”

Hope this helps.

I agree. But my response was to Pierre’s question as to why South African’s believe in conspiracy theories. You should rather ask why we do not.

I’m not convinced at all by any explanations on this thread as to why Basson has not been prosecuted. I have seen no argument from the NPA after September 2005 to substantiate any of the dubious explaining-away-of-facts made here. We simply never hard of the Basson trial again because our freedom loving media are obsessed with Jacob Zuma and apparently simply don’t care. Then you okes want to know why the everyday man in the street believe in “conspiracy theories” and simply put doesn’t trust our judicial system?

I thought a trial have to be conducted first and therefore if it happens that the parties do not agree on certain issue(s), then there would be a trial within a trial to determine whatever that would be at issue.

I raise this because it seems the whole trial of Zuma matter is likely to be conducted in all the courts of the land,
there is no trial yet but the law reprts are almost full of the name: Zuma as if he is the only important individual.

Is this not an irregularity?, irrespective of whether the courts have accepted to entertain the applications.

Harms my brother ! I regret the ambivalence of the sentence. Apologies! I agree with you. Perusal of the judgments points out a very strong perpective on the issues.

I need the CC to put an end to the disgreement on interpretation of s179. It will certainly happen.

We will not forget the historical links but they play little role in this regard. We will always be vigilant