Several newspapers, including Business Day, report this morning that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will drop all charges against Mr Jacob Zuma because it has no winnable case against him. This could just be a leak by the Zuma side to put pressure on the NPA, but I have a funny feeling that the reports might just be accurate.
What does this mean for South Africa, for our Constitution and for respect for the Rule of Law?
I must say, like most reasonable people I am rather skeptical about the motivation for this decision. If the reporting is correct, it is very difficult not to conclude that this was a political and not a legal decision. The game is given away in Business Day where it is reported that the NPA spoke to religious leaders, business leaders as well as taxi associations.
Huh? What do taxi associations have to do with a decision on whether the NPA has a winnable case against Mr Zuma? Unless of course this decision was not a legal decision but a political decision.
And as far as business leaders – those highly principled fat cats who first supported apartheid before jumping ship to the ANC when it could make more money that way – are concerned, I would not trust them further than my nose is long.
The NPA has a lot of explaining to do and its credibility will be completely shot if these reports are correct. It would mean either that they had pursued a non-winnable case against Mr Zuma for all these years (which seems rather unlikely, given the fact that Schabir Shaik was indeed convicted on charges of fraud and corruption and the original investigators recommended that Mr Zuma be charged with Shaik), or that they had now decided to withdraw the charges against Mr Zuma because he is a powerful man.
This would suggest that the NPA does not believe in the Rule of Law and equality before the law and that in South Africa we are all equal but, like in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some are more equal than others. If one is a powerful man, a man with money, one need not face the full might of the law even when one has done spectacularly stupid and probably criminal things. There is one set of rules for the leaders and another for us poor gits who pay their salaries.
Questions abound. Who made this decision? Was there any contact between ANC officials and the person(s) who made this decision and was any political pressure brought to bear on the NPA?
Meanwhile, if these reports are true, Mr Zuma will never get his day in court. This means we will never know if our President is a crook or not. Many of us – relying on the Shaik judgment – will have a strong suspicion that he is a crook, although we will not know for certain.
This means that if the NPA decision is true, it does not lift the cloud hanging over Mr Zuma’s head. It gets rid of the legal problems, but the ethical questions will remain. Every time we see our President on stage, dancing and singing and calling for his machine gun, many of us will wonder whether he did not trade in the machine gun for some money and favours on the black market. We will wonder who else has given him money and what other favours he has done for those who had given him money? We will wonder about Swiss bank accounts and government tenders.
No, this decision will not clear Mr Zuma’s name. We will forever wonder about whether he is a criminal or not. And that is a pity because, as I discovered when I was in the USA during Barack Obama’s inauguration, it is quite nice to respect ones President and to trust him.
‘Tha crazies are running the assylum” – Indeed, just like in “One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.
“Animal Farm”. Always a painful (but true) reference.
Some people might see this move as proof of the strength of the Zuma camp – in fact it is precisely the opposite. It is evidence of their utter desperation.
We must not be bullied into thinking that, “oh well, they have won, resistance is futile, and so we probably need to adapt to this new situation”. This is the last resort of bullies, where there is no recourse to to truth or legality.
If there is a lie – don’t accep[t it!
I think we jumping to conclusions to soon, reading from the news clippings the source seems to come direct from the ANC, meanwhile the NPA is denying that they are dropping charges…
Whats interesting to the run up to elections i think we about to see major political pressure on the NPA to drop chargers.
The way the NPA is commenting – ie wishy washy no comments etc vs the previous bullishness – makes me think the charges will be dropped.
I think we must wait and see what the N PA will say to these leaks but i wonder is this good for our democracy and our world constitution
Bullishness was not the appropriate manner of dealing with the matter in the first instance.
Secondly, speculation and and conjecture cannot help. Let us wait for facts and stop being gullible to unsubstantiated stories or unresearched journalism which has become our mainstay in SA.
Of course it is the most logical and sensible thing to do to wait until on e has all the facts, and for the due processes to take their course (remember the line on the Matatiele issue – “no decision has been taken yet, so don’t bother getting upset”).. But what has been said tells us a lot.
Mo Shaik said it yesterday; everyone is offering an opinion today (hired-gun Heath, Malema, Mantashe, etc, etc).. Either the “leaks” were lies and were designed to create pressure on the NPA, or they are preparing the way for a shock decision. Regardless, there are dirty tricks going on.
You will also notice that almost every comment by the Zuma camp adds distracting information, rgument or justification. These serve to divert attention away from the core issue – can the NPA lawfully decide to drop charges against Mr Zuma at this point? Let’s have some concrete information on that issue.
The whole Zuma affair is leading South Africa into a Constitutional Crisis on more than one level.
First there is Hlope, linked to the Zuma affair trying to influence the Constitutional Court in favour of comrade Zuma. This in itself should convince Zuma (if he had any sense of right and wrong) that this whole mess is causing a lot of embarrassment for South Africa.
Then there is Zuma himself, knowing full well that his decision to stand as president is tearing the ANC, government and South African society apart. Basically we are not debating ANC policies but only debating the narrow issue of the leader’s ethics.
If Zuma had any respect for the rule of law, the constitution, South Africa’s well being and a sense of patriotism, he would stand aside immediately.
I have no issue with Zuma fighting every charge right up to the Constitutional Court as he is entitled to do.
But it seems he is hell bent on perverting state institutions not to have his day in court.
Of course Ozoneblue and Spey (or is it Spuy) is probably going to call me a neo-liberal imperial capitalist any second now… How dare we “insult” the dear leader…?
Ishmael – bullish is clearly the correct approach if one has a strong case, which the NPA obviously has.
If charges are dropped it will be the result of the “political solution” long mooted by the ANC.
And of course after the decision is made, we are going to be bombarded with messages that Zuma will be (is) the President whether we like it or not.
Clearly if the charges will be dropped, heads should roll in the NPA for wasting the taxpayers money in pursuing an “unwinnable” case and “smearing” an “innocent” man. Will they roll?
What do you think Ishamael Malale?
Typo; “Ishamael” should read “Ishmael”
Tony, the guys in the NPA are hard working people who serve an opportunity to work without political influences at it has been in the deposed era.
The new leadership does not comtemplate to chop anybody’s head! I truly marvel at the bravery( lack of fear by the NPA guys), the only element which manifested was the prejudicial effect of their practices to remove Zuma from the presidential path(state power).
Upon Zuma winning his position as ANC president, they suspended holidays just to issue a statement that they are going to charge Zuma. It is those actions which dent the integrity of the institution.
There is a thought process which depicts ANC leadership as unthinking and eroding our constitutional democracy this will be proven wrong in due course.
That remains to be seen Peter!
Ishmael Malale // Mar 18, 2009 at 1:42 pm:
“There is a thought process which depicts ANC leadership as unthinking and eroding our constitutional democracy this will be proven wrong in due course.”
Uhm, actually it has been proven already:
http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Your_story/0,,2-2127-2128_2487497,00.html
The ANC has complete contempt for good governance and democracy!
George, the theory works so well about you. When the struggle was waged you seemed not participating when in your mind a great revolution was fermenting and you are suddenly such a collossus in protecting the rights of the downthrodden masses!
The article you referred to does not prove anything other that efforts to reverse democracy by the rich and priviledged !
Did you listen to Clive Derby- Lewis lawyers yesterday? He described the judge as being a “struggle Judge” and Clive Derby- Lewis as “right wing” therefore that’s why the verdict was against him.
Don’t you think this is a direct attack on the judiciary and the constitution of this country? Is it proper that this lawyer can utter such statements on TV without any challenge from the defenders of the judiciary? Or is it only Zuma and the ANC that are a threat to the constitution and judiciary.
Maybe you missed the lawyers comments.
Lawyers are not capable of attacking the judiciary when in fact they protect a revolutionary of the Calibre of Clive Derby Lewis, who eliminated a communist.
The defenders of democracy are unhappy with the judgment and probably hatching the constitutional challenge!
It is a travesty of justice for a black judge to deal with gthe matter. it is a sensative matter which requires a balanced bench with majority of seasoned judges [whites].
Ishmael Malale // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:37 pm
before attacking some one on being ” a champion for rights abuse on downthrodden masses
why dont you find out how old george is if memory serves me correct he is in the age of 23 -25 yrs old that would make him 8 -10 yrs old when the “struggle” downthrodden masses were liberated
so to say
“When the struggle was waged you seemed not participating when in your mind a great revolution”
com on give me a brake
Ismael how old r u seriuosly im not mocking im just asking cos since you are part of the ANCYL that would also put you in the roughly in the same age group where you wouldnt or couldnt possibly understand what was going on in the country at that time
Fair is Fair the ANCYL today has no belonging to the struggle or revolution ” its a born free generation”
Assuming that such reports are true, which I hope are not:
How will we know if Zuma’s crooked those who could be crued because they were crookable and that he’s a crook?
Who will say Zuma is a Crook or not, and if so, what provde do we have because he was more equal than those who have been before the Court of Law, or proved to be such Crooks before the Court of Law?
Can we therfore, or is there anyone, now in the Criminal and Law department or authorities it seems, who is not a crook because they would have let someone who had to be proved a crook or not off the hook?
Will this not confuse us as a nation – unless you are a crook, or not – yourself?
Huh1 Damn Crooks, or are they and how do you really really, and I mean REALLY REALLY know?
It’s really simple, just fire Vusi Pikoli if he wants to follow this thing they call the Constitution and replace him with a lackey called Mokotedi Mpshe who will not let a force such as the ANC be stopped by something as trivial as that, drop the charges one time on command. If the ANC win this electioin, I will leave and never comming back leaving these caffers to die of hunger for all I care.
Thomas, for my take on the criticism of judges and judgments see http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=535. I did not see the news report but if you report this correctly the lawyer was way out of line. He has every right to criticise the judgment and point out why it was wrong but he should not attack the judge personally and claim the decision was made because of the race or previous political affiliations of the judge. One should not go down that road – its the road of Malema and Mantashe and it is wrong.
Chris, the struggle is just beginning. The advent of formal political rights harlded the opportunity for ANC members to serve in what used to be a racist parliamentary sovereign state. We have just introduced building blocks for a social order which will reverse the frontiers of great many years of apartheid rule and white privilege.
Now we need to venture into changing the apartheid social relations of our society, including reclaiming the economy taken by Jan Van Rieebeck and ilk since the “discovery” of SA in April 1652. You do not have to be old to be a stalwart of struggle.
So we were born in yawning face of brutal oppression and enslavement on farms. Our social experieces taught us from childhood that we are regarded as less than human beings by some calvinists!
Our youth was epitomised by that sort of suffering which needed no auditorium to teach teach about the need for struggle.
I am almost a veteran of the youth league. I must indicate that not all leaders and members are born free’s as you suggest. it is only a parochial mentality which will lead one to thing a you do.
The fact that george could be very young would not make his greatly different from beneficiaries of our hineous past
You will soon come to know more of us better. One has to feign ingnorance to fraternise with these peace time-heroes of freedom and democracy! You will soon know broer !
Go to hell friend, forever!
Prof you very good at insulting judges. Your anger toy is Hlope, who you hate for his efforts to deal with racists in the Cape Bar!
Ishmael, you are wrong on so many levels and, alas, I see the subtlety of my arguments passed you by. I criticise judges about what they write and what they do, not because of who they are and what race they are or which political formation they belonged to. Oh, and I am cross with Hlophe because: (1) he took hundreds of thousands of Rands from an insurance company; (2) then lied about it saying it was only for “out of pocket expenses”; (3) then did a favour for that company by allowing them to sue a fellow judge; (4) then approached two judges of the Constitutional Court about a pending case; (5) then lied about it by saying the allegations were rubbish and that he had not approached anyone; (6) then in an attempt to divert attention from his troubles tried to create a constitutional crisis by taking the Constitutional Court judges to court; (7) then ordered the eviction of people who have been living in the Joe Slovo informal settlement for ten years or more – against their will; (8) all the while driving a Porsche and owning part of a wine farm with one of the most notorious hanging judges from the apartheid era. I assume you find none of the above troubling?
Prof, do you still remember why Zuma was not charged by Nckuka? Zuma case, NOT WINABLE. Do you still remember why Msimang J striked this case out of the roll? …state limped from 1 disaster to the next. Why should we get such a shock as if there has never been any mention of the fact that the case might well not be winable? Remember his lawyers recently made representations to the NPA. Why dont we think that could have made the NPA go back to their Original position, after all, this was their initial position. For a moment, let us assume this was a case of an ordinary citizen and the NPA decided as it is alledged they will, would we complain? I dont think so. I think this noise is simply caused by the fact that this is Zuma, the hated one. We forget that he is also a citizen, equally having rights.
Ishmael,
Seriously though, do you think Zuma is innocent? Can we just stop this “struggle” crappola?
Do you honestly think Shaik deserves medical parole? Stop dragging other people into this.
As a person who may be in parliament in the next month or so, can you answer the questions directly?
Spuy, the lawyers in the NPA advised that Shaik and Zuma BOTH had a case to answer and that they BOTH be charged, but Ngcuka decided not to charge Zuma, a decision that even judge Nicholson called “bizarre” and was clearly not based on law but on politics (Zuma got a lucky break from Ngcuka because of struggle ties etc.) When the case was struck from the roll the NPA was not ready to charge Shaik because after the bizarre decision of Ngcuka not to charge Zuma they stopped the investigation against him and only started again after the Shaik conviction. At that time Zuma was contesting the search and siezure warrants as well as the application for the diary from Mauritius and the documents from those raids were not yet available to them. The decision of Msimang had nothing to do with the merits of the case. So since 2003 the LAWYERS have consistently agreed that Zuma has a case to answer. I am wondering what might have happened to change this legal fact. Guess is, nothing.
I do not have to speculate on the quilt or otherwise of Zuma. tThoughts are not objective reality. The facts must be put before a judge for a determination by which we will all abide, contrary to the rendition of great scholars who believe that we despise the rule of law. He may be innocent or quilty the facts would clearly unravel at the relevant platform!
I really do not have a problem with anybody analysing the prevalent or known facts in relation to the (unproven) allegationsand placing applicable law on those facts and arrive at their suppositions. The agenda here is to say this is a criminal ! He cannot be president and so on. This political agenda is led by experts.
I really do not want to drawn into the Shaik case. I have never laid my eyes on any medical reports other than the media fight by experts based on conjencture.
The matter is being investigated and I truly believe that we will interact with reality. He may well be wrongly released. We will know this in due course. I understand the experts who processed the matter are being investigated regarding this matter.
Prof I cherish your arguments and want to see how you react under sustained attack. You do not recoil but fight back with ferocity.
Your approach is antagonistic and is means to captivate your audience who seem to hate the ANC and do not have anything to acknowledge about the ANC.
I can absorb all being peddled here but the good is lost in the bad! I will continue to be a nuisance!
I must indicate that I do learn a lot of things from your contributions on the website.
I have noticed that your students are playing “yes baas” and insult anybody who expresses a different thought.
Ishmael Malale // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“I have noticed that your students are playing “yes baas” and insult anybody who expresses a different thought”
I for one cannot agree with you comments.
I differed with Prof on his views about BEE.
And I believe we have now come to a stage where a political solution to Zuma is needed as he does not seem to be doing the honourable thing and step aside.
Suppose that makes me a dissenter as well.
I believe this blog has on numerous occasions enabled debate. Although for some it sometimes quickly spiral into a mudslinging contest in the way they attack the person and not the issue on the table.
Actually, Ishmael, it’s you and your mates here who seem to insult anybody who has a different thought. Everytime somebody posts something against Zuma or the ANC, it is usually followed by a surge of the standard ANC lingo – neo-colonial, racist, imperialist, agent of the west, neo-liberal, and so forth. These loud drumbeats are also usually accompanied by emotively driven arguments that don’t generally relate to the facts being debated. I think you are misconstruing the way things work – when somebody shoots somebody else’s argument down in flames, then the first person is not being insulting at all – that’s what debating entails.
Simply choosing to be different does not make one right. Ignoring facts, selectively interpreting facts, and making wild statements with lots of exclamation marks also does not make one right. And trying to make people feel embarrassed or ashamed by insulting them with emotionally connected words like “racist” and “playing yes baas” does nothing more than show people the level of your ability to constructively engage in debate.
This is not solely applicable to you, there are people on both sides of the fence who should pay attention to how the vast majority of contributors on this blog engage.
To the issue at hand – I will be disappointed if the stories are true, although only time will tell. The NPA is denying the validity of the reports, which is a positive thing. If this does happen, it will be another arrow to South Africa’s future growth and prosperity hopes – we’re already slipping all the way down the (probably racist, western, imperialist) International Corruption Index, and if a perceived crook (because foreign investors and ordinary taxpayers don’t care about court judgements, they care about perceptions) is given a free pass, it will further undermine the concept of rule of law.
Zuma must go to court – he has protested his innocence for so long, he has repeatedly asked for his day in court, he has claimed that it is all a plot against him – as Ishmael rightly points out, these facts must be decided in front of a judge. However, while he avoids this, people will inevitably draw conclusions (it’s called logical deduction) from the facts available, not least of which include the fact that he was implicated in a bilateral crime for which his partner in said crime was serving jail time (sort of, and before he was very expediently granted medical parole).
If Zuma wishes to quash these rumours, he should go to court. Since the man is hell bent on becoming president, if he is innocent and this is proven conclusively in court (not on a technicality, but conclusively), then I will celebrate – because it means that we will have a president who is not guilty of corruption, and it will restore confidence (some, at least) in our judicial system and political system.
If the NPA does indeed drop the charges, it will be an indication of the way things will be under a Zuma presidency. But then again, with people like Ishmael, a ‘veteran’ of the ANCYL, to defend him no matter what he does, it seems apparent to me that this is what the ANC desires. They didn’t join the struggle to be poor, after all.
Ishmael, I disagree with you completely.
Imagine I come into your house and conspire with your domestic and steal bread. Your domestic is convicted and I have charges against me, would you consider meinnocent until proven guilty by the courts??
What is these charges are dropped because the case is not winnable (I am a high standing community member) does that make me innocent? Does that mean people who think I am corrupt are racist?
I dont know, but I think not.
Friend, it is because of people like you that this country will never again have a white president. You are your own race’s damnation.
I agree with Gildenhuys, if Zuma had a shred of honour he would have stepped down a long time time ago. But Zuma has no honour, no shame, no backbone. The powers in the shadows want him to be president because he is…”morally flexible” and very malleable. The poor guy cant do nothing.
By the way, I
There is one more application, the very last, I suppose before a trial is held, the application for permanent stay of prosecution. After this the matter will probably go to trial.
Zuma does not have to meekly go to trial when there are some rights which he feels have been trenched upon. He is entitled to approach the courts.
By the way he is not using any extra judicial method to assert his rights the very court bloggers seem proud about.
The so-called logical deductions are nestled on unwarranted spurious claims against the ANC calculated to anger expatriated to go vote ANC out of government (a dream for the reasonable future).
If there are representations which cause the NPA to reconsider charging Zuma it portends the demise of democracy and freedom so goes the learnt classics.
You are entitled to that view. I am defending constitutionalism not Zuma.
For the umpteenth time: Jacob Zuma never, at any time, asked for “his day in court”.
Ishmael, I think you are giving me a backhanded compliment! But let me explain: I understand that given our history there is a vast gulf between South Africans based on race, class, gender and other factors and that this breeds distrust and perpetuates deeply entrenched positions – often informed by emotions rather than logic, reason and analysis of facts in South African political discourse. I also passionately believe in democracy and the need for accountability and openness. But because of the distrust, whenever one person criticises or points out faults about another individual and the political party he or she belongs to, it makes it very difficult for others not to see this as an attack on who they are and not to assume that the criticism is born out of hatred or ulterior motives. This makes rational discussion and debate very difficult and lead people to avoid discussion of the issues by trying to discredit the opponent by saying that opponent is filled with hatred etc. This is too easy. Not all criticism is based on hatred or a fundamental rejection of a person, a party or a particular racial, sexual or other identity group. This language of “hatred” diminishes our democracy and is an intellectually lazy way of avoiding self-criticism and honest appraisal of those who one might usually agree with or have an emotional affinity with. Democracy requires one to take seriously the arguments of an opponent and not to dismiss it as the rantings based on hatred, racism, sexism, homophobia etc and to engage with those ARGUMENTS. This is what I am challenging you to do: engage with the arguments – vigorously and heatedly, yes – but without resorting to cheap personal attacks (as some people on this Blog sometimes do). It does not mean one cannot be strident, one cannot make fun of the arguments of others, one cannot try and demolish the arguments of another with humour, sarcasm and logic. But the ARGUMENTS – not who one is or what race, sex or class one is – should form the basis of any discussion and argument. That is why I will NEVER argue with you by mentioning your race or your sexual orientation or your gender. Respecting the human dignity of another person requires that one treats their arguments seriously – even when one might think that the person is talking rubbish (as Hlophe might say!). Arguing with someone does not mean one is their enemy or hates them. It means one differs about the issues of the day = and that is what democracy is all about. That is why I love arguing – sometimes even robustly and with all guns blazing – without falling into the trap of putting people in boxes and talking about enemies, hatred etct etc.
Clara, on the Friends of Jacob Zuma website there is a prominent quote of JZ: “For a period of five years my person has been subjected to all types of allegations and innuendo, paraded through the media and other corridors of influence without these allegations having being tested. I have thereby been denied my constitutional right to reply and defend myself.” – How would JZ defend himself except in court? So he has asked for his day in court before deciding to avoid the day in court at any cost (probably on advice of his very expensive and good lawyers).
Prof, remember that people like Heath J, to date, having been heavily hands on on the Arms deal probe, is an advisor to President Zuma s legal team. Isnt there, in your view, the slightest possibility that the representations recently made could have caused the change of heart to the NPA? I mean, if we cant allow the NPA to review its decision just because a person standing to benefit we dont like, what are we saying? Are we saying the NPA is not independant? Should the other side say the same when the opposite is the case? Is it correct to deduce that you can ONLY be satisfied when Zuma can be found guilty, just because you found him guilty using a very reliable “There s no smoke without fire principle”? We really need to seriously and frankly ask ourselves: Is this about Jacob Zuma Or about Principle??? Then we can come close to being objective.
Fulu, do not fight Friend too hard. Soft sparring is fine Ha! Ha! Ha! It is possible for South Africa in the future to have a white president.
Our proposition that only blacks will rule is borne out of racial prejudices precipitated by political, social and economic subjugation of the indigenous inhabitants of our mother/fatherland.
The liberation of our people was fought by both blacks with some local whites amongst them, for the same cause; obliteration of apartheid and building of freedom and democracy for all.
on the basis of objective determinable facts you suggest that Zuma has a case to answer, not quilty. Some amongst us strongly hold the view that Zuma is possibly quilty until cleared he must stand down.
The test here is not the stiff one : beyond reasonable doubt, but unprocesses evidence seen in the media and probably gleaned from the Shaik case.
This is the moral purity advanced. He protests his innocents and proclaims being a victim of abuse of power by forces hellbent to thwart his potential ascendancy to the highest office.
The position which I hold is opposed by many in the blog, that so long as he is not found quilty by a court of law, he is entitled to stand but ought resign if found quilty ultimately.
It is not dishourable to defend your constitutionally quaranteed rights. I deeply respect the view held by PdV and many on the question of morality. These contributors are at the apex rung of the moral ladder and it seems I am at the lowest elementary one.
I agree that we totally disagree on this one!
Prof that a good point !
Can we please list the advantages vs disadvantages of having a sitting Head of State (likely J Zuma) with charges OBJECTIVELY, this will give us some idea, why is the NPA reconsidering. Maybe we need not argue this issue narrowly – I for one, believe this issue ought to have had a politico-legal solution immediately when indications of a Zuma presidency were there, and this has been clear for a while now. If we lived in countries like Madagascar or Gunea Bissau we would appreciate the fact that the stability of the country, is by far, more important than seeing one person in jail, while the country in caos. Which SHALL be the case if we dont look at the Zuma prosecution broadly, maturely and sensitively. Remember: leaders have followers. I am not implying anything NOR advocating for it. I am merely saying we need to seriously apply our minds on this one-really really apply our brilliant minds!
If these reports are true, I honestly can’t see what the fuss is. Bulelani Ngcuka said in 2003 already that he hasn’t got a “winnable case” against Zuma. And after six years under Mbeki of wanton squandering of taxpayer’s money to try and discredit the “left-leaning” Zuma in the court of public opinion over which our “constitutional expert” judge PdV resides – the NPA just affirms what we all know since 2003.
I would feel sorry for you pathetic lot if you were not so damned arrogant.
“Questions abound. Who made this decision? Was there any contact between ANC officials and the person(s) who made this decision and was any political pressure brought to bear on the NPA?”
And now even the noble PdV are “darkly muttering” conspiracy theories LOL
I am so over this whole Zuma saga. Especially now that Shaik has been released it almost feel like there is no point anymore. Shaik got away with it – it is almost if Judge Squires’s verdict and sentence never existed. Zuma might just as well get away with it as well. Who cares. Everybody will form his or own opinion anyway, it does not matter whether Zuma is ever tried and convicted.
Maybe it is all for the better if the NPA just drop the charges and let us all get on with our lives. Why should Zuma now be tried and go to jail, while his accomplice already beat the system? If Zuma is tried, convicted and goes to jail, he will be viewed as a martyr by his supporters. The NPA will be viewed as the institution who robbed South Africa of the opportunity to be led by this “great leader”.
I say, let them drop the charges and lets go to the polls on 22 April 2009. If the majority votes for the ANC, then the people have spoken. They want Zuma as their President corruption charges or not. Let Zuma than govern South Africa and lets see if he can live up to the people’s expectations.
Was Shaik not supposed to be released? fill me in.
Spuy, so our briliant minds must succumb to the idea that leaders whose followers threaten chaos must stand above the law. Surely JZ would reign in his followers if the course of the law led to his conviction, or what are you saying about JZ and his disciplined followers?
I do hope that there is full transparency if charges are dropped i.e. the new representations must be public, and the reasoning behind such decision. Whilst we must respect the right to privacy of individuals, some of these rights surely give way when a person gets the keys to the nation’s treasury.
Ishmael – I think that “innocent until proven guilty” applies most strictly to the mind of a judge hearing a case. I would think where poeple have a fidicuary duty to the whole nation, the standard would be set somewhat higher. Your reasoning sees Jackie Selebi still running the police over the next 5-10 years whilst he used public money to use every legal trick in the book to delay his trial, and possibly obstruct his own investigation.
If charges are dropped, will JZ explain how his favours to Shabir should somehow be regarded as acceptable behavour. Will he stop doing favours to cronies when he is president?
How are Your Peter. May you just introduce yourself to me. I do not want to make mistakes. How old are you? are you a student of law? which level ?
You are correct Peter IUPG is for judges that much is clear. Selebi ought to have been allowed to leave upon expiration of contract.
You will the opportunity to ask your President, Zuma during a press conference in due course.
Shakira, whatever you ve been smoking lately, please provide some to Peter. He can start understanding that We really, really need to move on, unfortunately-for some! This country has about 45 million people, most of whom, have been observing arguments and counter-arguments on the Zuma case. I am sure I speak for most South Africans, when I say, it is time to move on. If, or rather, when the NPA drop these charges, there will be some noise from some quaters of course-but we will soon get over it, the same way we got over some past unresolved atrocities cos we had to get over it and move on. Unfortunately, the Zuma case, due to how polarised and contaminated it is, it will just have to be one of those cases that we just pray and hope that IF he is guilty somehow (which none can say for sure) , that he has learned from it. Lets move on please!
Without commenting on the guilt or innocence of Zuma we cannot loose sight of the fact that corruption is always a crime where there are at least 2 parties involved. A chicken and an egg. It does not matter what Shaik was the chicken or the egg but he was one of them ( the High court, SCA and Con Court confirmed that) and so was Zuma everybody knows that. To withdraw the charges at this stage will send the wrong message to our already crime ridden society. How will we ever combat crime if the person in charge of the country gets away with it?
See the Nusiness Day piece today (http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A962441).
There is mention of the nature of the political meddling, and (reportedly) arguments that prosecution would not be in “the national interest”, and that there would be a threat to stability.
None of these matters are grounds for the NPA to decide now not to proceed with charges. Some would be the subject of an application for a stay in prosecution. And for the ANC and Mr Zuma to hand-pick a selection of civil-society bodies to provide material for the NPA to consider in a subjective notion like “national interest” is ludicrous.
Morning, Spuy,
There will certainly be a closure on this case. I truly think the guys are contributing in their own way to ensure justice should not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
We will ultimately cross the rubicon. The acrimony will wither away and we will live happily everafter.
We in the rural hinterland want the meaningful focus on rural development and agrarian reforms. We must hold municipalities accoutable to ensure massive service delivery to the masses of our people.
Sne has asked one question on a crucial question of the application of doctrine of judicial precedent between the SCA and CC. I summon legal minds to the high watermark polemics.
This will prove a worthwhile debate for legal scholars, practitioners and students. and of course any interested and affected parties.
Ishmael Malale // Mar 18, 2009 at 4:36 pm
im sorry but anc yl seems to have brain washed you, none of what you said makes sence, you acting like a fanatic, your part of dangerous cult
Now you seem to be harping on about including reclaiming the economy taken by Jan Van Rieebeck and ilk since the “discovery” of SA in April 1652
Reclaiming the economy? there was no economy that was invinted by the Dutch and the British reclaiming what r you on about?
The struggle is over you were not part of it nore will you ever be part of. YOur job in the ANCYL is to make sure the BORN FREE generations are educated that is all what you guys are mandated to do, educate the youth not on brainwashing cultic crap about the anti -revolutionist. come on man this is the 21st century the world is modernized.
Im sorry but most of the ANC supporters on this blog is in there 20′s for you guys to shout struggle makes me laugh actually.
At this stage I think people are just so emotional on this JZ matter. I think I’m quickly becoming a conspiracy theorist because I find it rather too convenient that Mo Shaik would be one of the first people, if not the first, to mention this so-called dropping of charges at a time when the topic on everyone’s lips was still his brother’s parole. Could he have been trying (successfully it would seem) to get people to focus on something different? Or is it just me not trusting our beloved media and their so-called sources? Me thinks in this case, the “sources” are none other than Mo Shaik himself!
Conspiracies aside, I seriously don’t see why some people seem to make a lot of noise about the NPA’a so-called change of stance: from saying WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH THE PROSECUTION to saying WE ARE CONSIDERING THE MATTER. In my view, there really is nothing wrong with this. All along, the NPA did not have representations from JZ but now that they have them, they have to CONSIDER the matter. They can’t continue saying they are proceeding with the prosecution whilst at the same time considering his representations. It has to be one or the other.
Now, if the NPA was to come out and tell us that, in view of the representations, they have decided not to proceed with the prosecution I would personally see nothing wrong there, per se. Afterall, that’s exactly why we have the process of representations. However, it will leave one lingering question in my mind, why did JZ wait for so long and subject himself to all the criticism if he knew that he had such persuasive representations? Why didn’t he just make the representations some years ago and in the process save the taxpayer’s money and save himself from all the negative comments?
Having said all of that, if the representations were strong enough and the NPA then decides not to proceed AND TAKES THE SOUTH AFRICAN PUBLIC into its confidence regarding the reasons therefor, I will lose no respect for our legal system and I will be happy for JZ to move to the Union Buildings!
Pierre De Vos // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Clara, on the Friends of Jacob Zuma website there is a prominent quote of JZ: “For a period of five years my person has been subjected to all types of allegations and innuendo, paraded through the media and other corridors of influence without these allegations having being tested. I have thereby been denied my constitutional right to reply and defend myself.” – How would JZ defend himself except in court? So he has asked for his day in court before deciding to avoid the day in court at any cost (probably on advice of his very expensive and good lawyers).
We don’t know why the NPA would drop the case. We don’t know yet if it will drop the case. But from your posting you are saying Zuma must defend himself even if the NPA has no chance of winning. This would be ridiculous of the NPA. It will have to charge everyone it suspects of committing a crime. Remember that the NPA can’t just charge someone if it does not think it can win the case. Take the Mac Maharaj corruption debacle, what happened to it?
Ishmael – I am pale male 44 years old, and someone who thinks he might have enjoyed being a legal practitioner, but finds himself buried in the financial world.
Having accepted that Jackie Selebi should not be allowed to continue in his post in spite of the fact that he is IUPG, can you explain why things should be any different for JZ (apart from the fact that he is more popular…)???
Ishmael, thank you for not judging me, prof for giving me another chance. I want to appologise for using the c word unconditionally everyone who I offended including myself, I’m sorry, it will never happen again, if it does I’ll understand if I’m denied from blogging here again. If there are any mitigating circumstance, I would like to add that I was quite emotional, I’ve never watched a game of rugby as closely and I’ve managed to speak quicker than I can think at times would anyone believe me if I said that I’ve typed quicker than I could think. OK so I have learnt the c word and it’s in my vocabulary, but still don’t judge me, thanks.
I thought an appology should preceed any further contributions. If the NPA drops these charges it would realy say something about the way in which the country has been lead for the past 14 years rather than the way in which JZ will lead the country, let me try and explain: We’ve seen the news and we’ve become accostomed to the way in which government conducts business. C’mon, check the movie aviator, to receive a little kickback before signing a big deal isn’t such a big deal. People who see the problem is in all probability just jealous of those in the position of receiving these monies and gifts. This is the way in which it gets done and it’s acceptable the travelgate people are being helped of the hook, dusted of and encourage to climb back onto the high horse, the vrevious president of an internatioinal crime fighting unit, simply called INTERPOL, is calling the shots at the SA institution where he was suspended and don’t forget old Brian (surname escapes me) who goes back to work living in a dilusion, same goes for honorary Hlope. Crime, crime crime we know who they are but they’ve grown so big that we can do nothing about them, because they will make our environment more unsafe and our country ungovernable. I’m just so sick of being bullied and intimidated by people who act like they will not resolve a matter by means of something that the intellect can provide. Why did the apartheid government ban blacks from obtaining education, is this the lesson? I want to make good, I want to settle the debt. How could I accomplish this or is it too late? Will I be the victem of crime twice a year?
Thank you Chris for the complement !
Mzo you have a good point. I wonder what will the effect of diclosing confidential details be. The Policy of the NPA is that such matters are kept in strict confidentiality. Or a broad exposition of the context will suffice ?
Friend apology accepted. The point is insulting one another will not add value to the exchange.
A modern criminal justice system will be build and the police reinforced with appointment of more officers and better equipments.
On the question of high horse. This can be contested by either changing the constitution or electing a leadership that suits your moral garmet.
The question of crime really afflicts us. The ANc must and will focus on eradication of crime and corruption in our society. All these requires the participation of the entire society.
Zuma is presumed innocent. There are very few people who have gone out of their way and pronounced the man guilty, so it is safe to say that most of us still presume the man innocent until proven guilty.
But, being presumed innocent does not mean innocent and until such time he has been pronounced innocent by the courts people are entitled to their suspicions. They should not be labeled as Zuma haters or as people who would like to see Zuma in prison. These people include those who believe in equality before the law, those who think their leader should be beyond reproach, and also those who think he is innocent and the courts will vindicate him.
Why do those who push the ‘we hate Zuma, we want Zuma in prison’ line, not consider that we may be pushing for his day in court because we think he is innocent? It seems to me they know more than we do.
If charges are dropped against Zuma, do we also drop or keep “presumed” in ‘Zuma is presumed innocent’? Or should Zuma remain “presumed innocent” until death do us part?
C’mon, Pierre, let’s have a column on the issue of “national interest” in respect of prosecutions. Is there any case law, how is the term defined, and whose assessment of national interest would hold sway.
Remember the Selebi “f…ing gorilla” incident, where it was decided that it was not in the national interest that he be charged. With the benefit of hindsight, maybe it would have been in the national interest for him to be prosecuted then and removed from office…
Ishmael – “Selebi ought to have been allowed to leave upon expiration of contract.”
Still keenly awaiting your response as to the principle differences between the Selebi and Zuma cases. Both in positions of public trust, both charged but not yet convicted of serious crimes, but you feel Selebi should be “allowed to leave” whilst Zuma should ascend to the highest office in the land.
What is the difference, pray tell?
“I was being asked in public about allegations against me and I said: ‘If I have to answer any allegations I will do that in court. I never said that I wanted to have my day in court.’” (Jacob Zuma, December 2007)
There you have it, from the Big Kahuna himself.
Clara,
Sementics! Sementics!
Yes, the Big Kahuna (and little kahunas) like to hide behide actual words spoken instead of their meaning.
Take for example Judge Squires pronouncement about a mutually beneficial symbiosis between Zuma and Shaik, which they are at pains trying to deny that it means a generally corrupt relationship.
Okay! Okay. Now a court date has been set for him “to answer any allegations”, why does he not do what he said he will do?
Ha-ha, Tony, search me.
Our view of Ierre De vos influences our perceptions on his comments about Zuma.He was quick on Judge Nicholson, now that the truth emedges he does not refer back to all his vernomous attack on the judge. So ‘Animal Farm’ is as true to the NPA as it is to him. The matter is going to be damaging.
We need to serve all South Africans and not only the Oposition. If this persists, the obviuos will be the American situation of division and class as it is persisting.There are more racial cases of late are on the increase and the media is also torn apart from George Bush’s time.
On Zuma, hw can the case proceed if it was influenced like in this case Mbeki and the NPA lied denying it. Should they be held for perjury, and Mbeki the same for misrepresantation of facts? I am afraid that it will become personal leading to civil war. COPE is defending Mbeki and the facts (part of the facts, as I also got it from reliable sources that there is more to come including the Nuclear Power Station deal signed with Zarkovsy last year will later be added if it is not in, including Gautrain as well later.My view anyway!
Zolile, I was not very critical of the Nicholson judgment, although I did ask some questions about the legal reasoning employed by him. The difference between Nicholson’s judgment and my writing is that a judgment must be based on proven facts – not on rumour and conjecture – while a Blog post may speculate. That is why Harms never said in the SCA that there was no meddling in Zuma’s case, he merely said Nicholson should not have dealt with this and had no evidence before him to make findings about this. If I was a judge I would not be able to find that there was meddling. As a citizens, I wonder though……