Comments on: SCA provides common sense interpretation of section 179

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:03:40 +0000

Z – I agree. We as judicial officers have to cope with that on a daily basis, because every one of our words, and every one of our phrases, have certain implications. However, if you would read a (any) charge sheet in which corruption is alleged, the allegations in any single charge usually run a few pages in typed script. When a court convicts a person on such a charge, without saying that “such-and-such an allegation has not been proved, but, regardless, in terms of the law, the guilt of the accused has been established and, therefore, I convict him” – then the court impliedly says, “I find that all the allegations in the charge sheet have been proven”.

By: z

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:47:11 +0000

Mouse

I for one am the type of person who would not have liked being misquoted, even if what I really said could be interpreted as the same. Interpretation of what someone said is so much in the experience and understanding of the receiver that I would prefer to only deal with the possible nuances created by my own statements and not those created by wrongly attributed quotes.

So while squires said, “I did not say that”. If it was wrongly attributed to me and the meaning was inconsistent with what I had said, I would certainly have said both “I did not say that” and “What I said did not imply that”. This as far as I know he did not say. But that’s just what I would have done.

It is still unclear whether Squires would agree with that statement in part or in whole.

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:39:08 +0000

Z – Thanks for the article. I think I read it at the time. However, even if Squires corrected the media (or attempted to do so) as he apparently did before the SCA judgment, my point in the debate remains unscathed. While it is true Squires J immediately said, “I did not say that!”, he never went into the legal implications of his having convicted Shaik on a charge wherein it was alleged (relying here on what Prof de Vos said above) that there existed a ‘generally corrupt relationship’ between Shaik and Zuma. A conviction, withou qualification thereof with reference to a deviation from specific allegatrions in the charge, clearly implies that the allegatrions have been found to have been proven. Even if the exact words “generally corrupt relationship” do noot appear in the charge sheet, which I doubt, the legal implications of his findings as Chris has pointed out boils down to one and the same thing. It is like a judge saying, I never said in my judgment that the accused had “murdered” the deceased, I convicted him of murder because the evidence showed that he wrongfully and intentionally killed the deceased. The word “murder” is so much heavier than “wrongul and intentional killing”. Or, I never said that the accused is a “child murderer”, I only said that he wrongfully and intentionally killed the child. Same thing – in law that is.

By: z

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:01:06 +0000

Squires sent a correction to business day after they published the generally corrupt false quote. It was long before the SCA judgment.

Interesting article by James Myburgh on this:
http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles09/myth_making.html

(The original site where the article appeared has had their account suspended)

By: chris mcdaniel

chris mcdaniel — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:42:11 +0000

Bongs just as you stated “Between friends there exists “mutually beneficial symbiosis”” at the end of the paragraph states evidence exists.

That whole paragraph from Squires is candy coated and if you understand the paragraph Squires is exactly saying a corrupt relationship between the 2 “friends”

One of the evidence given was the encrypto – Fax which was used as factual evidence

Heres some quotes from Squires which i would like you to explain

“It could only have been to allow Zuma to live at an even higher standard.

“This scheme smacks strongly of serving self-interest rather than a sustained concern,”

“The evidence plainly shows that Zuma was prepared to intervene on Shaik’s behalf, and that Shaik was ready to ask.”

Squires judgement shows this SCA shows this and CC agrees with this that there is evidence to a corrupt relationship. Bongs you can debate this till you blue in the face well lol ozoneblue in the face put the facts remain

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.

Now Bongs this scares me lets say im in agreement with you lets say I agree that there was no corrupt relationship or that Zuma is not corrupt but as we know Shaiks is corrupt and managed to influence Zuma or use Zuma. Bongs ask yourself this Zuma is our next president yet he had a history of a long friendship with Shaiks in which shaiks used Zuma all this time…..um either Zuma is extremely brainless and didnt realise oh Shaiks my china my bru my brother from another mother you gonna get into trouble if you carry on with bribing and trying corrupt the system or Zuma is easly controlled and influenced?? take your pick but none of them are pretty for someone who wants to be a president. Cos if thats the case ill have no problems influencing Zuma to wear a pink mini skirt to work

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:28:33 +0000

Bongs – if “mutually beneficial symbiosis” does not amount to conviction for corruption, why was Shaik then convicted on that charge? And why was his conviction upheld by the SCA and the CC? I suggest you go read Harms DJP’s judgment in the Zuma matter and see what he says about dictionary meanings of words; and, especially again, his assertion that, even though the crime of corruption legally takes two to tango (in other words, there should be a ‘corrupt relationship’ whether general or singularly simple), proof that one of the two was guilty will not necessarily lead to the conviction of both. Each offender’s criminal intent has to be proven independently. As I’ve said earlier, it can even happen that during the same trial the corruptor is convicted and the corruptee is acquitted for exactly that reason. So your suggestion that Squires J could not convict Shaik in the absence of Zuma, where the allegations were that there existed a generally corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma, is misguided. Moreover, what would have happened had Zuma died, became incapable of being tried or received immunity against prosecution? Would Shaik’s conviction on that count still be tainted? I don’t think so.

“But Squires J would not have taken the trouble of correcting the SCA error if indeed he found the existence of the “generally corrupt relationship”.”

I think Sqires J did not re-read the charge sheet when he ‘corrected’ the SCA (not that it is within his power to correct the SCA!), or the implcation of his convicting Shaik on that count. He probably only re-read his judgment on the merits and thought: “Hey, I didn’t say what the SCA says I said!”

By: Bongs

Bongs — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:04:58 +0000

If it is true that “generally corrupt relationship” was part of the charge (which I have not yet verified) it was wrong for Squires J to convict Shaik “as charged” (if he did) in the absence of Zuma. But Squires J would not have taken the trouble of correcting the SCA error if indeed he found the existence of the “generally corrupt relationship”.

I also agree with Ozoneblue that “generally corrupt relationship” does not equal “mutually beneficial symbiosis”. In the context of a criminal charge of corruption a finding of “corrupt relationship” is tantamount to conviction for corruption, whereas a finding of “mutually beneficial symbiosis” does not amount to conviction for corruption. Between friends there exists “mutually beneficial symbiosis” but between corruptor and corruptee there exist generally corrupt relationship. If you are in doubt check the dictionary meaning of ‘corruption’ and ’symbiosis’. If still in doubt check the definition of the crime of corruption.

By: chris mcdaniel

chris mcdaniel — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:33:14 +0000

OzoneBlue you stated Mutually beneficial symbioses” does not necessarily imply “general corrupt relationship”.

So from your understanding what does Mutually beneficial symbioses mean?

Ozone what you cant take way from Squires is the these two words “evidence exists”

Besides the phrase “generally corrupt relationship” what does that mean legally? the answer is nothing maybe on the political side could mean a different story but this isnt politics this is law

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:14:27 +0000

ozonblue – please re-read my last comment above. If the words “generally corrupt relationship” were included in the allegations in the charge sheet, and if the court convicted the guy on the charge, it impliedly found that all allegations in the charge had been proven and, hey, Presto! The finding was done! His later reaction to press reports to “correct” the issue is of no consequence – while it is true that, at least in his judgment on the merits (leaving aside the other two judgments that I have alluded to before) the words “generally corrupt relationship” never came over Squires J’s lips, he did “find” that by convicting the accsed on the charge. For a court to convict, one need not quote the charge sheet verbatim, the court is free to use its own words or interpretation of the allegations in the charge sheet. Simple.

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:44:25 +0000

ozoneblue, you seem to prove my point: in the quoted passge the court makes it clear that this is not a case where ONE payment was given to obtain ONE favour. Payments were made over a long period and then favours were done. This the state called a generally corrupt relationship. Besides, read the whole judgment as well as the SCA judgment where it is made VERY VERY VERY clear that Zuma did many favours for Shaik. You are referring to the second charge dealing with the bribe from Thint where the letter is indeed important but it had nothing to do with the generally corrupt relationship. Please read again and separate the two counts…..