“do you think that, after the exposure of political conspiracy, NPA could still succesfully resist that application?”

Absolutly with out a shadow of a doubt, the actualy evidence against Zuma still holds water and is untainted ……..if Zuma played that snip bit in order to win a permanent stay of prosecution, the high court would laugh at him, this is not an exposure of political conspiracy, you of all people being an officer of the court should know this.

“If Mpshe were to be brave enough to proceed with it, what was he supposed to do with affidavits of McCarthy and Ngcuka which rubbished Zuma’s allegations of political conspiracy?”

well that would be a trial with in a trial, Mpshe would use that as evidence to back up the claims that Zuma is taking a chance the NPA was not given the full transcripts nore were McCarthy and Ngcuka, and there rights infringed by Zuma. This would be a seperate matter causing more delays to actually find out if Zuma is guilty of bribery

“Could he ask the court to strike out those denials or simply admitt that there was political conspiracy?”

No what would happen is for those alligations to be tested in court involving the NIA and how Hulley got hold of these tapes with proof and how he passed them on to Zuma.

Bongs media and the like can find out who leaked the tapes, media can find out what was said on the tapes why cant media or why hasnt the name of the judge who authorised the phone tappings and for what purpose been released yet?

and further more for permanent stay of prosecution would be for Zuma to prove he wont get a fair trial zuma not getting a fair trial is a load of crap, R100M on Zuma’s defence and he cant get a free and fair trial?………what utter BS and now a 2 second audio clip proves a conspiracy , com on man…

Let us consider the permanent stay application – do you think that, after the exposure of political conspiracy, NPA could still succesfully resist that application? If Mpshe were to be brave enough to proceed with it, what was he supposed to do with affidavits of McCarthy and Ngcuka which rubbished Zuma’s allegations of political conspiracy?Could he ask the court to strike out those denials or simply admitt that there was political conspiracy?

My take is that over and above millions of rands that have been wasted already another R500 000 was going to be wasted with that application.

But the fundamental issue for me is this: the NPA Act criminalises interference and if there was, those who interfered must be prosecuted – the Rule of Law and all that. But as I said before, I take my insight from the Constitution which insists on SUBSTANTIVE – as opposed to procedural – fairness, both in criminal procedure matters and in matters of discrimination, say. The question will always be: can Mr Zuma get a fair trial before an impartial judge. This is for a court to decide, not the NPA. Depending on the nature of the interference (was evidence fabricated, people set up etc) it might lead to a succesful application for permanent stay. With what we know now I doubt if it would though because unlike the US we do not follow a formalistic criminal procedure process.

Prof, please mark my script and then answer my question before you tackle you fellow heavyweights like Advocate Ngalwana.

“infact why didnt they take over the investigation as it is a well known fact the ANC gets its funding from the likes of african dictators”

Just because it is such a “well known fact” it would be illogical and a wanton waste of tax payer’s money to invest time and resources on gathering intelligence to prove what every second brain-dead troll already knows?

since you also seem to suffer from selective amnesia

what was the total value of drugs that the scorpians took off the streets?

oh and what was there convection rates by the way?

so do you just support stupidity or just criminality?

“Those of use who pointed at the compilation of the Browse-Mole report as clear-cut evidence of a political conspiracy were mocked as “conspiracy theorists”.

Just a question before I answer yours……..since the NIA were investigating and “spying” on the events that lead to the browse mole report why didnt they say anything earlier? infact why didnt they take over the investigation as it is a well known fact the ANC gets its funding from the likes of african dictators so its not hard to believe that the Browse mole report was actually correct after all Zuma did topple Mbeki didnt he? ANC got crap loads of $$$$$$$$ from foreign dictators

so really who is actually at fault here the NPA or the NIA not doing what they are mandated to do?

Now for your question
Why was Leonard McCarty still consulting with Bulelani Ngcuka in the year of 2007 ?

well since you have already hung and quartered them in public which you have accused us of doing to Zuma……..the answer is simple, given the fact that both men and you and everyother citizen apart from the NIA and Zuma’s lawyers dont have the full transcripts and even the NPA didnt have the full transcripts it is a question im afriad will have to wait when they go to court i for one would also like to know if that is the case.

Now given the facts:

1) NIA has full scripts of audio tapes
2) Zuma has scripts of audio tapes

whats funny?
1) NPA isnt given full scripts just sections of audio which any fool can manipulate
2) NPA refuses to give full scripts to both men

Whats perverted?
1) Mpshe seems to have plagarised a Hong Kong Judge
1)Your trial by media based on thin air
2) Zuma “private citizen” can get hands on state property esp intelligence ( which by the way you still cant answer me – and im being kind enough to answer your questions )

so it would appear you and your band of zimbabwe cloes would rather prefer trial by intelligence & media than by the courts

My thoughts exactly. Just a few posts ago the NPA was totally “independent” and acted beyond any reproach. Those of use who pointed at the compilation of the Browse-Mole report as clear-cut evidence of a political conspiracy were mocked as “conspiracy theorists”.

“And those who suffer from selective amnesia when it comes to the misdeeds of the Scorpions — and there are many, especially when it concerns the polygamist, misogynist and financially inept Zuma — let me refresh your memories. In 2006 news of the top secret Special Browse Mole report (concerning an alleged plot by Zuma, his leftist allies and former Umkhonto we Sizwe leaders, in cahoots with some African leaders, to overthrow Mbeki) was leaked to the media. After denials from security agencies including the NPA, the Scorpions via McCarthy eventually admitted to Parliament’s joint standing committee on intelligence (JSCI) that the Browse Mole report was the work of senior Scorpions investigator Ivor Powell. Moreover, McCarthy also had to concede that the report was compiled illegally and that its chief content was concerned with Zuma, a suspect in its corruption case. The JSCI suggested that the perceived intent behind the information that fuelled the Browse Mole Report was to destabilise the country. The JSCI contended that the reports’ findings were provocative and contained baseless allegations.”

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A979792

One of a few excellent articles on this topic Business Day nogal.

What I fail to understand is how the rest of the media and even this blog is steering clear from a very important question:

Why was Leonard McCarty still consulting with Bulelani Ngcuka in the year of 2007 ?

1. You did not state that you were speculating.
2. Even if you were speculating it was because there was no evidence then of political conspiracy. Now there is. Your initial speculation should now be upgraded to ‘fact’.
3. If your speculation / fact is anything to go by, for political reasons there was no intention to prosecute and convict Zuma + “It is clear that where a person is charged but the purpose of charging a person was never to secure a conviction the case could not proceed.” + “I would contend this scenario would not allow the NPA legally to drop the charges.” = hypocrisy

In order to get my bonus points I resisted the temptation of using exclamation marks and I did not exceed 250 words.