I do not get angry often, but today I am livid. How dare these people play with our future?
Michael Hulley, Mr Jacob Zuma’s lawyer, wrote a letter dated 20 June 2008 to the Constitutional Court to say that he and his client were “perturbed by speculations that the judgments [before the Constitutional Court regarding Jacob Zuma] may be delayed until” the JSC had dealt with the complaints of the Constitutional Court and Judge President John Hlophe.
The letter – written in a rather opaque manner – continues as follows:
Disturbing allegations and counter-allegations of the most serious import have been made, the logical adjudication of which would invariably impact on the credibility of either the complianant or those complianed against with all the necessary adverse inferences to be drawn.
Whilst not pre-empting the findings which the JSC would be enjoined to make, the purpose of this correspondence is to register our clients unease and disquiet at these developments. Respect for our constitutional democracy and due process is the principle to be jealously guarded. Unfortunately, and with the greatest respect, these developments do little to engender and promote the principle, the resultant effect of which is the eroding of confidence in those mandated to give effect thereto.
Accordingly, our instructions are to vigilantly monitor the complaints referred to the JSC with the view to safeguarding our clients rights while equally respecting the high office to which all the parties to the dispute have been called.
I must say, I find the behaviour of Mr Zuma and his lawyers quite shocking. It is of course not that uncommon for lawyers to inquire when a judgment affecting their client will be delivered, but this was clearly not the intention of this letter. Mr Zuma’s legal defense so far has been based on stalling tactics to keep his criminal case out of court, so they clearly are not anxious about a speedy handing down of this judgment. This aspect of the letter is therefore merely an excuse to get to the real reason for the letter as set out above.
They have thus written the letter for far more sinister, political, reasons.
Carefully worded as the letter is, it can be read as an implicit threat to the Constitutional Court. One could read it as saying: “If you do not find in favour of Mr Zuma we will do everything in our power to destroy your credibility which has already taken a knock with the handling of the Hlophe matter.” Why else would Hulley warn the Constitutional Court that he will “vigorously monitor” the complaints with a view of safeguarding Mr Zuma’s rights?
It is not clear from the letter how they think the complaint against Hlophe threaten Mr Zuma’s rights, perhaps because there is no threat to Mr Zuma’s rights. But that is not important. What is important is to create the impression amongst ordinary South Africans that the two things are linked and that even the Constitutional Court is now part of the dark forces out to conspire against the ethically challenged mr Zuma.
What is clear form the letter is that Hulley and Zuma are scared that the judgment in the Constitutional Court will go against them and they are playing a very dangerous political game to try and destroy the credibility of the Constitutional Court in order to delegitimise a finding against Zuma.
The letter clearly – but “with the greatest respect” of course – states that developments around the Hlophe complaint have eroded confidence in the judges of the Constitutional Court to respect due process of the law. This is an outrageous – and legally misguided – allegation for the lawyer of the potential next head of state to make. It was exactly to ensure trust in the outcome of the Zuma cases that the judges made public their complaint against Hlophe so that it could be shown for all to see that they were not influenced either way by the alleged improper approach by Hlophe.
The suggestion that Mr Zuma’s rights are under threat is also outrageous as it suggests that the Constitutional Court judges will trample on his rights because of their complaint against Hlophe. It can be read as being aimed at creating doubt about the credibility of the court so that the political fall-out of an adverse finding against Zuma will be minimised.
The longer this fight continues the more it becomes apparent to me that behind his friendly smile Mr Zuma is a ruthless and irresponsible politician who will do almost anything – even destroy one of the pillars of our democracy – to stay out of jail and become President of South Africa. It suggests that he loves himself and his own ambition far more than he loves this country, its constitution and its people.
The Constitutional Court dealt with this letter in a restrained and completely appropriate manner, requesting the parties to the Zuma cases to make submissions about how the recent developments might influence the rights of Zuma or the outcome of the cases against him before Friday 4 July. They are therefore calling Hulley’s bluff, saying: if you have anything to complain about, then make submissions to this court so that we can consider them.
I suspect Hulley will not make further submissions to the Court because he has no leg to stand on. His letter – which he informed the press about yesterday – was meant as a political ploy to embarrass the Court. Let us only hope that it will not succeed.
Pierre
Thanks for these brilliant and insightful blog posts! It is always good to see a new post from “Constitutionally Speaking” in my news reader
In South Africa, a country that does not have an ingrained culture of democracy, the proper functioning of the “institutions of democracy” (most importantly, the Constitutional Court) are critical. Your excellent analysis of the effectiveness and independence of the Constitutional Court will hopefully be taken to heart by all South Africans.
Thanks!
Regards
Willem
“The ANC rejects with contempt eTV’s attempt to distort the letter written by the lawyer of the President of the ANC, and we reject their notion that Mr Zuma would do anything other than exercising his right as a citizen to seek legal recourse through the democratic institutions.
We will protect the integrity and independence of the courts and the judiciary, including the Constitutional Court, which eTV clearly does not have respect for.
The manner in which eTV obtained a copy of the confidential letter and the obvious bias in the reporting of the eTV news team as displayed on their channel today must must be of concern to all mature and reasonable citizens of our country.”
Issued by: African National Congress
Oh, so it was supposed to be hush…hush!
The proper course of action for any self-respecting court would be to summon Hulley before it to immediately explain himself. This is a prima facie case of contempt of court.
This childish (with facist overtones) mode of discourse is of concern to all mature and reasonable citizens of our country.
The erosion of the institutions of our democracy is of concern to all mature and reasonable citizens of our country.
The election of criminal and criminally accused leaders (at least one-third of the NEC – and those are only the ones that have been caught!) by our ruling party is of concern to all mature and reasonable citizens of our country.
It is perhaps time for all mature and reasonable citizens of our country to start mobilising and get this rabble voted out before it is too late. That is probably asking too much, but at least lets see a big reduction in votes for this new ANC!
Setumo, you make it appear as if you ARE the ANC.
I tried to put the statement in inverted commas to show that it is a quote…
here’s the link…
http://www dot friendsofjz dot co dot za/showarticle.asp?id=561
Let’s play a hypothetical situation.
Someone asked Hlope to intervene in the Zuma case.
That someone figures, worst case, if it comes out, we trash the constitutional court, since they would be damned for any decision they make on the matter. The only loose end would then be Hlope.
If I were Hlope, I would not even have taken the first step, without some assurance that I have enough evidence to take those who gave me the mandate, down with me.
But then if you look at Hillary Clinton, there is that guy who went to jail refusing to testify against her, and got handsomely rewarded by “someone”. Payments made as he was going to jail, by some who can be traced back to you know who. (Another lovely conspiracy theory)
I would still like to hear a rational argument from one of the revolutionaries, why there is no one but Zuma when he himself stated that policies are determined by the collective. He has also promised that there will not be a fundamental shift in ANC policy. That does not seem revolutionary. Are people thinking he will do more than he said? Or is there more said behind closed doors?
Why does Setumo say: “A defeat to Zuma will be a defeat to the masses.”? But Zuma implies the collective rules and not an individual.
Now I want to ask Mr Zuma that if he sees the trouble all this is causing to the point of a breakdown in trust of the highest court, why he does not step down so that the collective can rule. After all ANY leader can then implement ANC policies, no?
This is what Zuma said at Polokwane:
“ANC policies, including economic policies that have been adopted at this conference do not indicate a fundamental shift from the policies that the ANC has adopted since it has come into power. Let me reiterate that decisions with regards to policies in the ANC are taken by conference and not by an individual.”
Even the moderates who are anti-violence say strange things:
www DOT friendsofjz DOT co DOT za/viewmessage.asp
Read the following post: 25/6/2008 11:18:31 PM Down The Gear with Slogan
I quote a small piece out of context:
“Friends of Zuma are not egocentric or pompous. Friends of Zuma are not even tribalists. Friends of Zuma are not xenophobic. Friends of Zuma are not arrogant.”
The words “Friends of Zuma” occur 19 times in a message that sounds like the biblical Sermon on the mount. It does not read “decent people” or “people who believe in ubuntu”, but “Friends of Zuma”.
But then what do we expect when a leader invokes a divine mandate. If some of the supporters of Zuma are considered as a movement, they are starting to acquire many of the characteristics of a religious cult on the one hand and a militaristic one on the other, with divisions of more and less militant folk.
Anthropologists, sociologists students, here’s a research project for you.
Setumo, I saw you stirring up the Friends of Jacob Zuma against Pierre! Now why are you being so ungracious to your host?
From the contents of the letter displayed, I take another interpretation. Look the Court already said that it does not allege any of the parties put Hlophe up to it. But no one knows what Hlophe will say to the JSC. Now just supposing Hlophe claiming to have a “Mandate” from Zuma to corrupt the Court. Well, to be honest, I don’t think must faith could be put in it unless he has Zuma giving it in writing signed before two witnesses and Notarised. But it wouldn’t be nice for Zuma, would it? And we can already see the extent to which the rape acquittal is ignored by members of the public.
I think that Hulley, Zuma and Thint should be bothered that their case has been interfered with, but I also think they should be concerned that their names could be used to prove or infer something that might not be true.
Sorry, but he is just registering “unease” and “disquiet” and the reference to Judges could be pointed to Hlophe as much as them.
I might be being incredibly naive but the criticism seems unduly harsh here.
Setumo/anyone, I don’t watch E-tv so I didn’t see the story. Tell me, “The manner in which eTV obtained a copy of the confidential letter” from the ANC Statement, what was the manner that E-tv got a hold of the letter? Was it stated in the report? Because otherwise, it could have been Hulley’s receptionist faxed it to them just as much as someone on the receiving end.
By this time Zuma and his lawyers are used to using and abusing the media in order to sabotage all possible prosecutions against him. The masses who had attended his earlier court appearances, keeping viogil through the night, picketing, toyi-toying, singing Awuleth’ Umshini wami, 100% zuluboying, vowing to take up arms if Zuma is convvicted and so on surely did not do so out of their own accord, but probably did so in response to Zuma and his lawyers’ public appeal (outcry) through the media that he should be regarded as innocent and that everything is a mere conspiracy against him. So I would not be shocked to hear that Hulley (or even JZ himself) has leaked the document to the press. At this stage, the more press coverage JZ gets in this sorry saga, the bigger the chances of his wooing the masses into believing in his innocense and the so-called conspiracy (by people you don’t see, mind you, Tokkeloshi’s perhaps Mr Malema?) regardless of what the law and the constitution say.
Why does Selebi have to be so thoroughly guarded and protected during a court appearance? http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2347569,00.html
If it is the so-called ‘third force’ (‘dark forces’), then who does JZ have to be araid of? (Remember, Mbeki was all for JZ’s prosecution, and all against Selebi’s!)
This might give off some show. So come on Mr Zuma, here’s your chance to prove that you are a real leader!
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2347447,00.html
Well it means that the Zuma’s legal team is willing to fight the tribalistacal-political motivated charges against Zuma in all spheres and dimensions.
It is evident that the evil behind Zuma conspiracy is not willing to give up the fight it is using all available forums (including judiciary this time around) to discredity the next prosperious national honourable President Jacob Zuma.
I believe it’s a last kick of a dying horse.
If people want to go back to pre-1994 era they are more than welcome. Bloodshed is nothing to most of us. We acn go back to the field.
“the evil behind Zuma conspiracy” – good demonisation of the opponents work – makes it easier later to do all that killing we’ve been boasting about.
Lindelani Maseko please explain to us how a court case revolving around corruption (alledgedly involving government money which should have been spent on public services) will take us back to 1994?
I ask you again, why the obsession with Zuma. Surely your movement is about more than the cult of personality? Surely its about laudable ideas like eradicating poverty, good health care, fighting crime, and educational opportunities.
All real lasting revolutions are about ideas, not people.
For example, could Gwede Mantashe not make as a good a leader if Zuma was found guilty? Societies that put people before institutions and the rule of law end up like Somalia and Zimbabwe.
Pierre,
The masses (blog readers) are hungry for a broad debate. How about we do away with the 1-dimensional propaganda and bring issues to the fore.
A. The Merlin Trust
The Merlin Trust was formed to receive funds from Rolls Royce (an arms deal beneficiary) which where “supposed” to be allocated to setting up the DSO’s AFU. RR provided R2M, but R1,7M of those funds where paid to an international investigations agency, KROLL, “supposedly” for some “very important” case.
The Board of Trustees for Merlin Trust include one Saki Macozoma and one Vusi Pikoli. Other include Tiego Moseneke (brother to Dikgang Moseneke) and one Wendy Lucas-Bull.
Cause for concern:
1. If Rolls Royce was to be found to have been involved in Arms deal corruption, can the DSO be trusted to investigate thoroughly?
2. Why did the BOT of Merlin Trust “lie” to Noseweek about how these funds were spent?
3. What is this big case that was funded?
4. Is it a coincidence that Saki Macozoma (one implicated in the not-so-hoax emails) and Vusi Pikoli are involved?
5. On the issue of the DSO working with international investigations agencies, could this explain the production of the infamous Special Browse Mole?
6. Who in the DSO is responsible for this counter-revolutionary document (similar to apartheid’s Stratcom operations)?
7. What is it exactly that the DSO has against Zuma, to the extent that they will even go as far as (allegedly) trying to frame him for murder?
http://www dot witness dot co dot za/?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=2902
8. Can the DSO and those who vigorously defend them be trusted?
9. Why was a letter written by Thabo Mbeki and signed by Zuma (as head of government business) submitted by the NPA to court as part of evidence that Zuma was fulfilling his part of the deal (i.e. squashing SCOPA’s investigation into the arms deal to protect Thint)?
10. With all their resources, were the DSO and NPA truly “NOT” aware that this particular letter was written by Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki and not JZ?
11. Is this fair on Shabir Schaik that this letter was accepted as evidence?
12. Can an institution that is entrusted with overseeing justice be trusted considering such a malicious and conniving act?
I wish not to suggest that all these issues are related. Nonetheless, they are of concern to me since they came to my knowledge through various sources.
If indeed we are ALL for building a better SA, no issue can be left as unimportant!
(I’ll continue with “B” at some point)
Setumo – that does look like some juicy detail, but it needs to tested in a court of law, as part of Zuma’s defense, if we ever get there. If these dark conspiracies were true I wish Zuma would show some courage and tackle his opponents head-on in court, instead of all this ducking and weaving we see from him – it does rather indicate that his case is weak rather than strong.
Setumo, all that you are doing by throwing open untested speculation is to confirm (the mainly racist) belief of society that all (or at least the vast majority of) government officials (from President, to Ministers, to parliamentarians, to police chief, to prosecuting authority, to public servants) of the new regime are corrupt. But, in any event, even if some people in the DSO are corrupt (some have already been charged and convicted for theft, fraud and corruption), it does not make the case against Zuma go away. To the contrary, I do not think that a court will ever find that Z is (or has been) an innocent victim of a conspiracy to get riod of him, because he did receive money from Shabir Shaik, and he did do him and others some favours in return. Even though he might be perceived to be the scapegoat, he is not an innocent (nor the only) one.
Setumo, I have to agree with Mouse et al on this one. This is actually the main reason why I am happy with either the continued prosecution or the Amnesty for full confession because it is smoking everyone out. I don’t want crooks in my beloved ANC. I want men of calibre and honour. Your widening of the debate is not actually widening any debate on the Zuma Trial. Do any of your points offer a counter explanation as to why when Shaik saw the chances of his Arms Deal riches falter, he asked his buddy to lend his political clout, which his buddy did, and appears to have been handsomely rewarded for that? No. So you are simply destroying the credibility of your own party further. Which is fine, for the reasons I’ve already outlined, but it won’t have me siding with a crook just because you think there are other crooks in Government.
I agree:
1. There are corrupt people in the ANC/NPA/DSO (who want to frame Zuma). They must be stopped.
I disagree:
1. Zuma would have helped Shabir Schaik even if he was NOT the Deputy President or MEC. To suggest that him having a good heart was motivated by his political power is misleading and malicious. They have been friends and have been helping each other from way back.
2. Zuma had no political leverage on the arms deal. He was NOT part of any structure that was tasked to deal with the matter. He thus had no influence on which way whatever matter is handled around this arms deal. He could therefore have NOT been able to protect Thint even if he had tried.
Setumo, as I understand it no one is saying that his motivation for helping his friend was because of his political power. They are saying his motivation was the money Shaik was bankrolling him with!
As I further understand it Zuma asked Thint to reconsider withdrawing their offer to Shaik.
As for your suggestion that Zuma had no political power to protect Thint, Stone, he is trying to bring down democratic accountability and the legal structures to protect him and Thint now! I’d say he believes his political power to be considerable now, so why not then?
I really wish you could start to look at this issue objectively.
Speculations yes…but the veracity of these speculations MUST be of concern to all of us. Thus we should not quickly jump into the Zuma-bashing-bandwagon before we question and are satisfied with the answers we receive around these matters.
Zuma’s war so far has been fought on both the legal and political battlegrounds. I fully support his strategy:
1. Frustrate them on the legal battlefield!
2. Whip them on the political battlefield!
In fact the political battlefield is the only place where the real war is…the keys to Tuinhuis are at stake. The legal issue is only meant to ridicule Zuma just like they “almost” succeeded in the rape trial.
@Mpho…
“Setumo, as I understand it no one is saying that his motivation for helping his friend was because of his political power. They are saying his motivation was the money Shaik was bankrolling him with!”
Here’s where I miss your argument:
1. I believe that Zuma’s “presumed” political power is at centre of these charges. The state’s argument is that Zuma had power, thus he was offered R500 000 for his services. They mention all his political positions (in detail) in their latest and all previous indictments.
2. If Zuma’s “presumed” power had nothing to do with their argument, there will be no case. (i.e. the argument that he was “really” paid to pull such a magnanimous stunt would be ridiculous).
3. I’m saying to you that Zuma WOULD have helped Shaik even if he did not have the “presumed” political powers. They have been helping each other since the struggle days. To suggest that “this time” he is helping him because he has “presumed” political power is malicious and misleading!
Setumo, it is not an acceptable strategy to issue Application after Application on spurious grounds (as with the last one, have you looked at what everyone has written on it?) when our Courts are already working beyond capacity. Your suggestion that a litigant should spend everyone else’s money – what those poor people who donate to the Friends of JZ must be thinking – on worthless application after worthless application is very sad. I hope these lawyers receive a punitive costs order for their behaviour. Matters of merit are blocked when people frivolously issue applications.
Setomu – yes Zuma does want to believe that politics can over-ride the rule of law. However, there appears to be a great deal of accross the board resistance to the idea that a big politician can be above the law – Zimbabwe looms too large for that to be allowed.
Zuma faces 15 years in jail if the prosecution succeeds – a bit more than ridicule you will agree….
It’s ridicule… Shaik paid R20 OR R30 for Zuma’s car wash…he must go tell the court “Why”! Ridiculous!
No Setumo, you seem to be missing the point. The crime occurs when you misuse your political clout. Taking a bribe to do something is a crime. Whether it is turn a blind eye to contractors helping themselves to a few extra bricks when you are supposed to be guarding them, or telling a French Arms company that you’ll make sure you will cover their back, it’s all the same thing. This rubbish that the Friends of Jacob Zuma need to believe, that all the money that came his way AFTER he intervened was just two friends doing what friends do, is really sad. Honestly, it is really sad that you want to convince yourself that everyone is being horrible to big-hearted JZ, who was helping someone out of the kindness of his heart. How that man plays you all is amazing. He’s told you to see the devil in everyone else’s shadow in order to deflect your attention. Do you really think that one poor person will benefit from Jacob Zuma? Because I don’t.
Setumo, for Jacob Zuma’s (and the legal profession’s) sake, I hope you (or the likes of you) are not part of his legal team wasting taxpayer’s money. His application, as Prof de Vos has rightly pointed out in the newest blog above, is ‘dead in the water’. If Zuma is so bloody innocent, why is he so battling to keep the matter out of court?
I have wanted to research how common the belief is that awarding contracts to relatives or doing political or economic favours to friends with your government vested power/influence is the RIGHT thing to do.
The law calls it corruption. After all, any power/influence gained by you as an individual belongs to the state/people who vested that power in you as their representative to manage their tax money for the common good. Therefore you cannot use that power/influence which is owned by the people to your whim.
But just because the law calls it corruption and for good reason, does not mean all people necessary agree to that law (though still bound by it).
The minor form of this is in people getting traffic fines squashed by a family member. The major forms come with housing contracts awarded to family or positions in educational institutions given to wives (one of which I am privy to).
Setumo:
You say:
“I’m saying to you that Zuma WOULD have helped Shaik even if he did not have the “presumed” political powers.”
“Zuma had no political leverage on the arms deal. He was NOT part of any structure that was tasked to deal with the matter. He thus had no influence on which way whatever matter is handled around this arms deal.”
My comments:
1. If a senior government official comes and makes “suggestions” regarding a deal, it does not matter whether he was part of the official structures for that deal.
The mere fact that he does so, means
a. That he believes he has influence.
b. That the perception is created that he has influence because of his stature and access to resources within government.
2. How could he have helped him if he didn’t have any power?
3. So what exactly did Zuma then do to help his friend? And what influence and power did he use in this process and who vested that power in him?
People, you are missing a point here. As far as I understand it, JZ is being accused of soliciting 500K per year to protect a certain company from arms deal investigations. This he was to do during his time as Deputy President and not during the cooking of the arms deal. The fact that Thint needed protection, from the then Deputy President, speaks to Thint being involved in some corrupt dealing before JZ became Deputy President.
For me, I think Thint need to reveal why they needed this protection in the first place, but that would be admission of guilty. So basically, the only way out for the accused is to bulldoze all that comes before them.
SIMPLE.
Khosi, we are not missing that point, that is what we have been saying all along – then comes people like Setumo and Lindelani (and Malema, and Vavi, and …) and they think we misunderstand what JZ is been doing the last few years.
No Mouse and Khosi, they are not saying that we are misunderstanding. They are TELLING us that we are missing the point by trying to get us to pay attention to Mbeki and the awarding of the deal. Of course, that time is important in a way – Thint? Thale? were concerned that someone may look at this deal and then try to come after them – and that’s when JZ got roped in and THAT’S when we all get interested in JZ’s conduct. Who was head of this or that procurements, who is a Director of this or that Trust who helped raise money for infrastructure for the DSO, it detracts NOTHING from JZ’s alleged criminality and they are only raising all these (non)issues in the hope that the men being attacked care more for their reputations than they do for the pursuit of justice.
I think it is very funny too how they come with all this slander and intrigue in relation to everyone else, ie: Mbeki was head of the Committee therefore he HAD to profit, despite there being no actual evidence. Yet when we have a clear chain of events, backed up with evidence, JZ’s Friends want to tell everyone that we must be more charitably minded and give the guy a break! Then they want to talk about hypocrisy and one sided story telling?
My fellow South Africans…
Here’s my understanding of the charges against Zuma as per the indictment. Of primary importance, is that the state need to establish a 4-way link between Thint-R500K-Shaik-Zuma.
1. The Zuma-Thint link
a. Zuma apparently had a meeting with Thint to convince them to take Shaik on board. The state argue that by so doing, Zuma was acting as a Nkobi Holdings employee, thus he was supposed to disclose his “extra-employment” to parliament, since he was then occupying public office. This is (of course) ridiculous. The state cannot prove conflict of interest in Zuma’s actions primarily because he was not party to the arms deal business, thus they seek to concoct a charge of non-disclosure about a “fictitious” employment. As mentioned earlier, I contest that the state cannot prove that Zuma would have NOT acted on behalf of Shaik even if he was NOT the deputy president. Zuma has been working with Shaik for a long time before he even became DP. This link puts Zuma-Thint-Shaik in one room, but falls short of the R500K.
2. Another charge relates to Zuma recommending Shaik for a bussiness deal back when he was MEC. Te state argues that it was improper and an abuse of office. I contest that Zuma recommended Shaik because he had faith in his (Shaik) company’s ability to deliver on the objectives of the particular project. If Zuma had said “its Shaik or nothing”, then the state would have a case. This only manages a Zuma-Shaik link.
3. The state is thereafter left with the controversial Mauritius meeting to derive the 4-way link. There is however no prove that there were any discussions of R500K during that alleged meeting.
4. Next, the state relies on the so-called “encrypted fax” which they say details the Thint-R500K-Shaik-Zuma arrangement. Equally, this so-called fax does not “bluntly” substantiate the allegation. The strength in this argument relies in the state’s ability to “decrypt” the fax, which then become open to multiple interpretations. In addition, the state attempted to get a confession from Pierre/Peter Moynot (not sure exactly) in exchange for a deal. This guy got the deal, accepted that he wrote the encrypted fax, BUT DENIED that it was detailing a bribe. Needless to say that this left the state with an egg on the face!
5. Next, the state has to prove that Zuma did indeed “try” to protect Thint as part of the alleged agreement. For this, they rely solely on the a letter penned by one Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki and signed by Zuma in his capacity as leader of government business. The state will try to argue (riduculously) that this was Zuma’s attempt at fulfilling the deal. They managed to sneak this one past Hillary Squires, but they will be seriously embarrased if they tried it again. Besides Thabo Mbeki’s letter, there seems to be no proof that Zuma tried to “suggest” (as per Z’s fallacious presumption above) anything to anyone around the arms deal investigation.
6. Every charge thereafter, is an alternative charge including the tax one, where the state argues that Shaiks dealings with Zuma constitute revenue for him thus he was supposed to declare these monies to the tax man. There’s a “complicated/technical” argument about “interest free” loans and stuff somewhere there.
This is MY undestanding of Zuma’s charges…I don’t know what is Anonymouse’s understanding.
Setumo, you seem very confident of Zuma’s defence to all these tings. Tell me, why is your man not willing to walk into Court?
I haven’t seen the indictment and cannot comment on what the state needs to prove in terms of that.
The Indictment:
http://www.friendsofjz.co.za/documents/Indictment%20Zuma%20Thint.doc
Oh…and there’s also the charge about Zuma lying to parliament when he was asked by one Raenette Taljaard (or something) whether he ever had a meeting with Thint between “what-and-what” date. Apparently Zuma answered by saying he never had a meeting with Thint. The state argues that Zuma broke Parliament “rules”. Again, to me this is a matter of interpretation. Zuma could have simple answered the question within the context of the “what-and-what” date as put forward, not necessarily suggesting that he never had an encounter with Thint.
Here’s the link to the indictment:
http://www dot friendsofjz dot co dot za/documents/Indictment%20Zuma%20Thint.doc
I will happily be open to your “learned” analysis of the indictment if and when it is ready…
Setumo
I do not know the details of the indictment but only comment on where your logic might be at fault:
1. “As mentioned earlier, I contest that the state cannot prove that Zuma would have NOT acted on behalf of Shaik even if he was NOT the deputy president.”
You clearly missed my point above. How could he have had opportunity to act on Shaiks behalf if he were not the deputy president? If he was not a senior government official he would not have had the presumed influence necessary to even approach them. A man off the street doesn’t just approach an arms company and make suggestions to them of who they should take on board.
IF he had prior relationships with the arms company then maybe you could have wondered in what capacity he is acting. And even then a government official should know better, than to involve himself for the sake of friends in a government procurement. So did he know them beforehand?
Zuma would not have approached them if he did not believe he could influence them. What is the basis of the belief? And was it not successful? What was the basis of that? Why listen to Zuma?
You have not answered the basic question:
How could he have helped him if he didn’t have any power?
Where did that power then come from. Was it not from his office as deputy president?
Z,
The “help” I’m referring to, is when Zuma spoke to Thint on behalf of Shaik. I’m saying to you, that Zuma would have spoken on behalf of Shaik “even if” he was not DP. He could rely solely on Thint’s “respect” for his “STRUGGLE CREDENTIALS” to convince them to take Shaik on board.
If the state can prove that Zuma went into a meeting with Thint and said “I’m the DP, give my boy the deal”, then they would have a case. All they are doing now is drawing an inference from Zuma’s DP position to suggest corrupt intent. Zuma also has struggle credentials. Wouldn’t Thint “listen” to his view because of that? Wouldn’t anyone listen to Mandela’s view even if he is no longer president. They would, precisely because of credentials and NOT position.
Setumo / Mpho – thanks for the link to the indictment, I’ll go through it and might just perhaps comment on iot. However, the fact that everything in this case, including the indictment are being disclosed (published) on the friendsofjz website makes it appear as if JZ’s legal team is sitting with their hands in their hair and they want to elicit as much as possible outsside ‘advice’ to see whether the game plan should be changed.
Mouse, the Friends of JZ web site is a fund raising tool. They are publishing all the documents in order that the funders can see where their money is going. I actually think that is quite laudable. Although the spin off is, as you say, anyone can give their 2 cents worth.
“He could rely solely on Thint’s “respect” for his “STRUGGLE CREDENTIALS” to convince them to take Shaik on board.”
Why? What use are struggle credentials? There are many people who fought in the strugle and who don’t have political influence. Are you telling me that Thint would listen to any old former MK person? I have no idea what you are suggesting here.
Setumo Stone,
Eiiish my brother, you are really in the corner. You have to be to bring “STRUGGLE CREDENTIALS” to the argument. That weakens your assertion.
Setumo
1. At last you answer the question with: “STRUGGLE CREDENTIALS”
You are gravely mistaken if you think the business world is such a nice place, that they just let nice people with “struggle credentials” influence business and economically motivated decisions.
Listen to many of the posts on the friendsofjz site and hear them lament the capitalist out for own gain. Now you want to say that they’re nice people who make business decisions based on what good people tell them? Why would they? And more importantly why would Zuma think they would.
2. Another thing is the state makes the case that Zuma had been privy to inside governmental information, which he would not have had otherwise. That in itself taints such an approach as made by him on behalf of Shaik.
3. Read section 10:
“acted in any way that was inconsistent with his office, or exposed himself to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests”
“used his position or any information entrusted to him, to enrich himself or improperly benefit any other person”
Ask yourself why Shaik asked Zuma. And then ask yourself why Zuma thought Shaik would ask that of him. And wonder if he was not improperly benefiting Shaik.
4. R1million of the R4million paid in 783 (!!!) installments was not described as loans in the books. And aside from that the state asks valid questions regarding how to ascertain whether indeed the monies constitute loans or not. Nkobi’s transactions did not make business sense. Why loan large amounts when you are barely getting by?
Section 32:
“The schedule payments to accused 1 make no legitimate business sense, in that neither Shaik, the Nkobi group, nor the other relevant entities could afford the payments, being at all times in a cash-starved position (at least until August 2004), relying on and at times exceeding bank overdrafts and thus effectively borrowing money from banks at the prevailing interest rates to make the said payments interest free. On the other hand, the group’s survival depended upon obtaining profitable new business, inter alia, with the assistance of accused 1, and also accused 2 and 3.”
These are valid questions. And the transactions look suspect.
I wonder if you would have thought otherwise if it were not Zuma, but maybe the politician you dislike most.
Take Zuma out of the equation and read the arguments, and tell me there is absolutely NO case whatsover, NO chance that it was as the state suggests.
Next thing Shaik is going to be blamed as part of the infamous third force, for making such suspect payments to Zuma, because unfortunately those were not made up, by some conspiracy.
I have not necessarily been 100% convinced of Zuma’s guilt except that it seems unfair for Shaik to be in jail and he not.
But I must say, reading the indictment it’s becoming harder to think he is innocent of all charges. Ironically thanks to the friends of JZ site.
Setumo Stone, I’m wondering what you and others like you could achieve if you gave the same energy that you give to defending J Z to another cause, like the plight of the poor in this country.
Zuma after all has some of the best lawyers in the country, lawyers most citizens wont be able to afford. He can have his day in court and set the record straight.
There’s a better way to spend your time.
@ Z / Mpho / khosi…
YES,… “struggle credentials”. It is plausible. Yes, it does not apply to everybody, but in Zuma’s case it does give him leverage for political influence (which is NOT a crime).
My point of departure is that the state is gonna have a lot of difficulty proving their presumed assertions. Another reason could be that Zuma is an “EXPERT NEGOTIATOR” thus Shaik had faith in him. He had proven his negotiating skills in KZN in Burundu (i think) where he intervened. Is that also not plausible? I doubt!
In fact, I’m wondering why Zuma was never appointed as a mediator in Zim, given his proven track record.
Setumo / Mpho – I do not think the indictment calls for any learned analysis at all. Chapters 1 – 5 thereof sets out clearly what the state alleges and will be endevouring to prove against JZ. As far as I could determine, all the allegations in the indictment are very specific in disclosing specific indictable offences, and the charge sheet cannot be objected to on any ground. It is going to be a hard call for JZ (or any of the other accused) to either object to the charges (for not disclosing indictable offences) or to attack the prosecution’s case on the basis that the evidence had been fabricated / obtained in furtherance of a conspiracy. The application currently before court is ‘dead in the water’ as Prof de Vos points out in another blog. To argue that JZ (or any of the other accused) will not receive a fair trial in the light of the wide media coverage (which friendsofjz is actually furthering with this fund-raising endeavour) or an evil conspiracy is also bound to be still born, simply because the state seems to have evidence on file to back up each and every allegation to its fullest extent. The only chance that any of the accused would seem to have is to suppress evidence; or to hope that witnesses either die, flee, recant their evidence or are caught out at lying on material points. But, this is what the JZ camp has been doing the past few months – to play for time and to bring frivolous applications through which to suppress evidence (e.g., the Mauritius documents and the documents seized from his lawyers’ offices), no?.