Comments on: Reasons not to charge Zuma unpacked

By: KASI PROPERTY

KASI PROPERTY — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:46:06 +0000

heite,hola ,mocha,ag i mean let me rather get straight to the point. Prof, i can’t remember so well anymore but can you perhaps clarify to me in particular ( i think we apha mzansi have the prosecutorial system) what does it actually mean having regard to the whole NPA Zuma saga. ezasekai

By: Samantha

Samantha — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:54:16 +0000

As a citizen of this country, and a member of the public whose interest is at stake, I would far rather the full extent of the rot be revealed and those involved punished. The fear of a backlash, nationally and internationally, should not be a determining factor.

In fact, were the entire debacle to come out into the open and the relevant parties dealt with, I believe it would be more beneficial to this country than the ongoing saga. Surely the fact that higher office holders are found to be guilty, and therefore not immune to prosecution for their crimes, the SA public might perhaps find their faith restored in the Rule of Law and our country’s justice system. At the moment, I certainly have little faith in it.

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:25:17 +0000

Oupoot, if I was advising the ANC I would tell them: ok first win the election, then announce an completely independent official commission of inquiry in the arms deal and pledge full co-operation with the investigation. Volunteer to hand over party finance records and all information at the disposal of the party and make sure that the investigators have enough info to produce a credible report. The arms deal will not go away and will eat away at the ANC slowly but surely, so lancing the boil once and for all is the only way to save the party from an inevitable demise. Then, once the report is published, open a discussion about the the appropriate action to be taken. Those involved in corruption will at least have to lose their positions but maybe criminal trials can be avoided “in the national interest”. Then we push the “reset” button on this whole thing and try better next time. Sadly they will not listen to such advice because too many of those implicated are in high places and will have their political careers ended. They are acting not in the interest of the ANC or the country, but themselves and in the process doing immeasurable damage to the ANC and the country.

By: Oupoot

Oupoot — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:24:09 +0000

Pierre, you are right – it should be “in the public’s interest” and not “national interests”. And yes, in an ideal world or more democratic society, this sort of corruption scandal should lead to the fall and replacement of the current govt, with those responsible held accountable through the criminal justic system. But in the real world and current SA political environment, it is highly unlikely that the ANC will be replaced by any party or that they will be able to replace half their leadership with untainted persons.

I’m not suggesting that they go free or do not face punishment. But criminal prosecution and jail time may have unforseen consequences for SA, e.g. social unrest, withdrawal of investments or paralysing govt for 3-5 years, to name only a few.

No, I do hope the perpetrators will be exposed and some form of punishment be handed to them, maybe more based on the concept of restorative justice. This could be negotiated between the various political parties so that a consensus could be reached. E.g. fines at least equal to the amount of monies illegally gain plus interest, banned from public political life (in any form) for at least 10 years (but preferably more), and become directly involved in community development work for a min. period of 3 years.

Thus, their guilt is exposed, their reputations are destroyed or at least tarnished, they are removed from public life and policy making and they make some reparations to the SA public.

By: Too Young to be Completely Cynical

Too Young to be Completely Cynical — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:12:35 +0000

Prof,

If the NPA did decide to drop the charges against Jacob Zuma do you think that conduct would fall to be reviewed in terms of the provisions of PAJA?

Without closely examining the Act, I would think that the decision to drop the charges against Jacob Zuma would constitute an administrative action within the scope of the Act.

If this is the case do you think the NPA is obliged to follow the provisions of s 5 of the Act in reaching its decision?

And if the public were dissatisfied with the decision of the NPA do you think that the provisions relating to judicial review come into play at all?

I look forward to hearing your views on this.

By: zamo gasela

zamo gasela — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:18:23 +0000

the bugger would surely opt for the second option.he has shown that he is completely immoral,and would say and do anything to save his own skin.corruption was committed by people in government and therefore the extent of damage this case will do to government is of no significance.as you correctly put it,the interests of society far outweigh those of mr zuma and should therefore be brought before court to weigh the evidence and decide whether indeed he is guilty of crime.

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:45:27 +0000

Oupoot, “national interest” is not a ground on which the NPA can decide to drop charges against anyone if they have a winnable case in terms of the prosecutions policy – unless we talk about an apartheid era crime. They can drop charges in the public interest. Your argument seems to suggest that where the corruption runs too deep everyone should get off. I disagree. What really needs to happen is for any corruption to be exposed. This should lead to the fall of the government of the day, yes, but this is not uncommon in a democracy. One cannot argue that because a government will be implicated in corruption and this might bring that government to a fall, it would be in the public interest not to pursue charges against the corrupt as that would be to conflate the governing party and the state. Just because it will be bad for the governing party does not mean it will be bad for SA, surely, as the ANC is not the state. It just behaves sometimes as if it is.

By: Oupoot

Oupoot — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:34:35 +0000

Pierre, you have not explored the “national interest” to its full extent. What if Zuma implicates Mbeki, the ANC, half the current cabinet and heads of govt depts / agencies, not only in benefitting from the arms deal, but also in destroying evidence? These revelations will impact on the Arms Deal Inquiry report, which will cast a massive shadow on those semi-independent agencies that did the investigation: Public Protector, NPA and whoever else were involved.

This will massively dent the confidence by the SA public in these institutions, their protection of the rule of law and protection of the public against abuses by the state. It will destroy the confidence and trust in the SA govt, not only by investors and outsiders, but also by the SA public. And lastly, it will require the NPA investigate and possibly prosecute half the govt.

However good it may be to uphold the law in these instances and see the guilty prosecuted, it will not be in the national interest to have half the cabinet facing possible prosecution.

By: MFB

MFB — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:48:22 +0000

1. Isn’t Zuma and his lawyers essentially saying “Let me off the hook or I will implicate someone else!”. Which is like me saying “Don’t arrest me for punching my wife, or I’ll give her a helse klap when I get out of chokey!”. This is intimidation. Shouldn’t people go to jail for that/ (I’d love to see Heath and Kemp behind bars.)
2. Aren’t they saying that they have been suppressing information relevant to their case for several years? in other words, aren’t they going into the courtroom having declared that they are unreliable witnesses? Isn’t the judge liable to wonder what other information they are hiding — especially information harmful to their case?

By: maanskyn » items shared on google reader this week

maanskyn » items shared on google reader this week — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:32:50 +0000

[...] Reasons not to charge Zuma unpacked [...]