I always liked comrade Blade Nzimande, leader of the South African Communist Party (SACP). Maybe it is because he sounds so camp when he speaks; or perhaps it is because the SACP has sometimes been a voice of reason on important issues such as Zimbabwe and the need for internal party democracy in the ANC.
I was therefore rather shocked to read in Business Day this morning that Nzimande, speaking shortly after the KwaZulu-Natal ANC conference where a call was made for the scrapping of Mr Jacob Zuma’s criminal trial, seemed to endorse this call, telling a rally of supporters:
This trial of (ANC) president Jacob Zuma is not a criminal trial but a political trial. It may be the first political trial since 1994.
Now, there has been a lot of dark muttering about the political motives behind the prosecution of Mr Zuma. So far no one has been able to provide any evidence of the conspiracy against Zuma and Mr Zuma himself has not come clean to explain who is leading this conspiracy and how they actually fabricated all this evidence of wrongdoing which have already led to the conviction and imprisonment of Schabir Shaik.
Mr Zuma has also never explained why he took all this money from a convicted fraudster, why he had met with arms company representatives who then paid him money via Shaik, why he had done favours for the fraudster, why he lied to Parliament about meeting the arms company representatives and why he is so anxious to prevent the diary of the arms company representative that shows he met with this representative from being tendered as evidence against him in a criminal trial.
As the defendant in a criminal trial, he has a right to remain silent and need never explain these things to anyone. But as a politician he really should not have this right. In a mature democracy his failure to answer these questions would long have disqualified him from holding office in any political party. I am surprised that journalists have not been more vigorous in asking Mr Zuma about these things. Surely if he wants to be President of the country he has a duty to explain to the public and to present an alternative version of the actual proven facts which – in the absence of an explanation – make him look like, how shall I put it, a crook.
It is not inconceivable that the Scorpions might have felt that it had political cover from President Thabo Mbeki to go after Zuma and that if President Mbeki had been as vigorous in undermining the Rule of Law to protect Zuma as he was in undermining it to protect his friend Jackie Selebi, then this case would never have seen the light of day.
But the problem is not that Mr Zuma is being charged. The highest court in the land had already confirmed that Zuma took more than a million bucks from a convicted fraudster as well as R500 000 from an arms company that was solicited as a bribe by Shaik and that he had done several favours for that fraudster, and had lied to Parliament about meeting the representatives of the arms company that gave the bribe. It also seems rather strange that an innocent man would do everything in his power to prevent documents about his financial affairs from being used in his trial.
It is for a court of law to decide whether these actions amount to criminal offenses, but it clearly makes Zuma a deeply flawed and damaged candidate for President. Especially in the absence of any explanation from him.
If the SACP wanted to act in a principled way to the prosecution of Mr Zuma it would not talk about the Zuma trial being a political trial. Instead it would affirm respect for the Rule of Law, the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority and our courts, and would call on the Scorpions to also vigorously investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute other politicians who had taken bribes during the arms deal.
If there is a problem with Mr Zuma’s trial, it is that he is being singled out for prosecution while others (including the ANC itself, according to Andrew Feinstein) might be getting away. The only decent and principled thing would be to ensure that all those who had taken money from arms companies (Chippie, where are you?) are also prosecuted and to demand that the Scorpions does its job properly.
But Nzimande and other supporters of Mr Zuma is really trying to defend the indefensible. Whether Mr Zuma is ever convicted of a crime or not, we already all know that he is ethically tainted and that he is unfit for high office.
This kind of attack undermines respect for the the criminal justice system and our courts and is dangerous. It prepares the groundwork for a rejection of a guilty verdict against Mr Zuma as “political” (no matter what the facts might say) and really undermines one of the pillars of our democracy – all for short term political gain.
As Hillary Clinton might have said: “Shame on you Blade Nzimande.”
That article is full of interesting titbits, but I want to highlight one or two things.
“The call for charges against him to be dropped, first made by the ANC Youth League (ANCYL), gained political weight at the weekend when it was adopted among resolutions at the party’s KwaZulu-Natal provincial conference.”
An OFFICIAL resolution for charges to be dropped. Whatever the implications of such resolutions are, I don’t know, but that it undermines the judicial system is clear.
There is an immaturity as you say Pierre in dealing with the matter, but also in the very fact that so many in the ANC were willing to risk our country’s future and political stability on someone facing legal prosecution. But then if you like intricate webs then did some not want to get in by using his popularity, hoping he would go down and they then get the prize? (I would stake nothing on that question, but explore as many possibilities as possible)
Why does the ANCYL need to seek legal council on his behalf? Malema talked about “forcing the hand of state”. Well one reason could be that Zuma is free to campaign, if others take up his case.
The following from the same article
“However in an apparent reference to it during his address at the close of conference, Zuma stressed that in politics “timing” was crucial, and one needed “a political analysis” before speaking on sensitive issues.
“You understand what I’m saying,” Zuma said.”
I don’t like the lack of context of that part, but want to find the full speech. The timing thing intrigues me.
….But the problem is not that Mr Zuma is being charged. The highest court in the land had already confirmed that Zuma took more than a million bucks from a convicted fraudster as well as R500 000 from an arms company that was solicited as a bribe by Shaik and that he had done several favours for that fraudster, and had lied to Parliament about meeting the representatives of the arms company….
Pierre for goodness sake. Which court of law would rule contrary to these findings of these courts you mention.Bear in mind that these are higher courts than the one Zuma is to sit . Which judge would say based on the arguments of the defendant legal team “I find that JZ did not take more than a million bucks from a convicted fraudster as well as R500 000 from an arms company that was solicited as a bribe by Shaik and that though he had done several favours for that fraudster they do not amount to a bribe but social help, and had not lied (provided the concourt rules otherwise which is very unlikely )to Parliament about meeting the representatives of the arms company that gave the bribe” This is how strange the case is. All issues that have to be adjudicated by the trial judge have already been dealt with. That judge whoever will be ( I pray that the case be handed to Msmang H) will only have to pass judgement. This cannot be fair. Tell me prof how does one defend himself. There is no fair trial.
Again it is not entirely true that JZ is avoiding trial. I believe prof should also blame the state on how it has done its business. Proof of this was the case before Msimang H. Let us remember prof that that the defence was ready to go on trial. It was the state which was not ready. Hence Msimang pronounced that their case ” limped from one disaster to another”. I believe this is still true today. The only apropriate remedy for Mr Zuma and the country is to call for permanet stay of prosecution.
NB: I would have loved the case to continue so Zuma proves his innocence, pity there are no conditions for this.
T, Mr Zuma was not before a court and he is innocent until proven guilty. His trial will revolve around his intention in taking the money. The state will have to prove that he had the intention to be bribed. He will have an opportunity to argue that he did not have this intention. Either way, we know he took the money (Shaik admitted this) and we know he did favours. The only question is with what intention he did these favours. That is for a court to decide.
T, there is nothing in this case that cannot be said about any other criminal investigation when the accused are charged in sequence and not together. In such cases one can say, oh but the successful prosecution of an alleged accomplice will way too heavily on the current accused. But as Pierre says, the State has to prove not that a crime was committed, Shaik is proof enough of that, but that Zuma had criminal intent. I concur that this new wave of postulating is worrying in a sense, but I do get a sense that Zuma’s supporters are realising more and more that their man will lose his case. Zuma should start petitioning for a plea bargain!
Here it was at least some of Zuma’s supporters think from the friends of JZ website I know it is a lot, but these were just on the then current page:
www DOT friendsofjz DOT co DOT za/viewmessage.asp
Musa.Xulu1
23/6/2008 9:24:32 AM
“There is thus absolutely no way that he can get a fair trial, atleast not if a high ranking judge like Pius Langa is also a conspirator who wants to bring down Zuma at all costs using his colleague Hlophe as a bait. We now understand as to why he received that award from Mbeki, it was effectively to thank him in advance for a job to be done well. We will not take this lying down though and will take to the streets to demonstrate against the judiciary which we don’t trust anymore ‘cos it has an agenda.”
Viva Slogan
22/6/2008 10:56:27 PM
“Bullshit in the justice system where did it come from? From the high place- Concourt. Where do the Concourt people live? In the high suburbs-high places.”
Thabo, Sekhukhune
23/6/2008 2:05:49 PM
“And fair trial is out of the question in the so-called JZ case…. The so-called JZ case must not taken seriously and this Concourt is becoming laugh stock….”
Musa.Xulu1
22/6/2008 3:46:41 PM
“It may seem that Zuma’s legal hurdles are a hinderance but I personally do not believe that the NPA will succeed – not after so many bungles including coercing the judiciary to fumble the way they did over the Hlophe NON ISSUE. We will remain disciplined, law abiding, educative and selfless comrades that we are but condemn the abuse of state resources without fear or favour. The judiciary is grossly compromised and one hopes that sanity will prevail because there is absolutely no way that Zuma get a fair trial under this poisoned atmosphere.”
ak
21/6/2008 2:12:34 PM
“The laws are specific , we are supposed to follow them to the letter. What weapon do you want us to defend ourselves with if the interpretation of the law is hot with the hotness of the day. If it is cold with the coldness of the day. When such interpretation depends upon the vagrancies of the judges.
But here is the catch.
The oppressor would like to oppress you with your permission. Should you evince any signs of displeasure with this oppression, He turns around and accuses you of being insubordinate, wild, and lawless.
I am no lawyer, but I have been made to believe that the premise of the law is that it is better to release a criminal than to punish an innocent man. To me, the whole issue of Malamela, is a question of our being oppressed for the second time , the only difference our willingly acquiescing to such harassment this time.
There is nobody more dastardly than the bully. He thrives on your fear. He is mortified by your rebellion.
If the law does not protect its own people, The people will seek protection through any means possible. When the court sentences the culprit we ululate. for it is the judgement that is already in our hearts.
When the court sets the accused free, we ululate equally well. for it is the judgement that is already in our hearts. The courts should not be proud to pronounce judgements , that run counter to our feeling. For the courts are nothing but the embodiment of public opinion.
How many times must a man look up before he can see the sky. . The answer is hanging in the sky As the author once said,” begin you go grow rank upon me? I shall physic your rankness.”
Is this the question that is being asked of us. We are seeing through this unjust justice system. And this rankness will be cured by violence against us.
All for nobody other than the ever willing donkey of the ANC, through whom we have come to see our liberation.”
T, one should also bear in mind that one court is not bound by another court’s findings on fact (or law, where stare decisis is not applicable). It is therefore conceivable that a new court may afford certain pieces of evidence (e.g., the faxes, copies from diaries, etc) less weight than what the court did in the Shaik matter. It is also conceivable that a new court may find that a specific witness cannot be believed, even though the court in Shaik’s cased believed the witness. It is furthermore conceivable that a specific witness might recant his/her earlier evidence. Lastly, it is possible that some of the witnesses that the prosecution wants to rely on have in the mean time died, or may have become untraceable. Remember, the whole trial will have to start afresh, and the new court cannot (and will not) rely on evidence before another court to base its findings on. That might prove incentive enough for JZ to try and stall the prosecution as long as he could, but his becoming President of the RSA before being prosecuted might prove to be a more juicy carrot before his nose to do so.
Pierre
From the friends of JZ website:
www DOT friendsofjz DOT co DOT za/documents/Zuma%20Review%20Application.doc
———————————————
ANC President Jacob Zuma has lodged an application in the Pietermaritzburg High Court to review the NPA’s “unconstitutional” decision to recharge him for fraud and corruption. Read Zuma’s affidavit on the “Documents” page titled “Zuma Review Application”
———————————————
If you have time to read it, it would make for interesting discussions.
It is not completely clear, but he SEEMS to IMPLY that Mbeki is behind the conspiracy, because he said Zuma will have his day in court on 14 June 2005, but was only charged on 20 June 2005 and the NDPP said it was an independent decision.
Someone should just ask him outright (if it hasn’t happened) whether he believes Mbeki was involved.
I fully agree with Musa Xulu. In Zulu we say: uyihlabe esikhonkosini Xabashe.
Mbeki, his Chief justice Langa ( coz by the look of things its Mbeki’s chief justice not the country’s) and all his judges are really playing a loosing game. Actully they playing this game alone because Jacob Zuma is not interested as he’s busy engaging on meaning full development of the country which has lost its values due to Mbeki’s regime.
People should stop waiste everyone’s time. Musa you talking of demonstrating that’s nothing. We talk of killing and laying our lives for this whole shit happening in our country due to Mbeki and his judiciary.
I am now of the opinion that the charges against Mr Jacob Gezeyihlekisa Zuma should be dropped. At which point, the South African electorate should then decide if it wants him as president. Let the electorate be the jury. I think there is no point in persuing a matter that is clearly dividing the country so stackly.
People know the truth.
Khosi
I had similar thoughts yesterday.
Would you vote for him then? Given your feelings on the matter.
z,
What I do know for sure is that my Provincial vote is going to the ANC. National??? not too sure.
I agree with you there Khosi that people know the truth that Mbeki is the toaser.
lindelani – please explain the meaning of ‘toaser’? I can’t seem to find it in my dictionary. As far as the Zim thing is concerned, TM did thus far appear to be ‘toady’ and even the ‘toaster’ who would lift a glass to Bob’s imaginary win. But ‘toaser’?
Legacy left by Mbeki is really embarrassing to the country as a whole. He is the one to explain the word ‘toaser’ coz he’s one perhaps you should ask him in one of his senseless ‘IBIZOs’
Oops, now you will hear from Khosi, for sure.
And just as Khosi was being relatively nice to you…
I’m still puzzled by the word ‘toaser’. Can anyone help me to find out what it means? And, in which language does it occur?