E-TV will break a story in their one o clock bulletin today that suggests Mr Jacob Zuma and his lawyers will use any means necessary to keep him out of jail – even threaten the Constitutional Court. Will comment on it later once the story was broadcast.
This blog deals with political and social issues in South Africa, mostly from the perspective of Constitutional Law. Written by Pierre de Vos
-
Quote of the week
August 31, 2010 | 18:56 pmThis morning it was agreed that Nyami Booi, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, will forward a letter to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe, Leader of Government Business, advising him that the portfolio committee:
• has received guidance from the Max Sisulu, Speaker of the National Assembly, that parliament has the power to require any person or institution to produce reports;
• is now formally requesting that the interim reports be produced within a reasonable period of thirty days;
• that until the interim reports are received the portfolio committee has taken a decision to suspend deliberations on the Defence Amendment Bill; and;
• that in the event the interim reports are not produced the portfolio committee reserves the right, as a measure of last resort, to compel cabinet to produce the interim reports. – Statement of DA MP David Maynier
Archive for Quote of the week »
New from Seminar Room
- Open Democracy interview With Pierre de Vos on media Freedom
- SABC Board Memorandum to Minister
- Media Appeals Tribunal – circa 1977
- Pierre de Vos: Harold Wolpe Trust talk on Protection of Information Bill
- Pallo Jordan on racism, “transformation” and the DA
- Ronald Dworkin on Elena Kagan
- Archive for New from Seminar Room »
New from Updates
- Support the 2010 Ntaba ka Ndoda Heritage Festival
- JSC: Shortlisted candidates for judicial appointment
- Access to Justice Week: Invitation
- Defend and Advance Media Freedom
- Scholarships: LLM in human Rights and Democratisation in Africa
- Isis Legal Clinic: Donate to make equality a reality for all
- Archive for New from Updates »
© 2010 Constitutionally Speaking | Powered by WordPress
A WordPress theme by Ravi Varma | Created by Blog Meistress
I said this earlier.
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.
We cannot undo the last 14 years because one man. South Africans should be made to decide this matter. We all need to remember that this is being played out in the full glare of the country. People know the truth.
Let the constitutional justices retire. Then elect fresh minds.
The thruth of the matter is “WE ARE PREPARED TO LAY OUR LIVES DOWN AND FACE THE ENEMIES FOR OUR PROSPERIOUS PRESIDENT ZUMA”.
I think this massage has not come across most people’s minds.
Khosi, what’s your views on the Arms Deal Amnesty suggestion?
Can’t be. I doubt it.
JZ brought together a group of real pro’s to handle his case.
I can’t begin to start to imagine that they would indulge in unethical or unprofessional conduct { from a Bar rules point of view – conduct unbecoming of an advocate therein is a wide concept}.
By the way, Madiba really surrounded him with quality advisers. His legal eagle eg was Fink Haysom from Cheadle Thompson & Haysom.
The same, sadly , cannot be said for TM. It foreshadowed his downfall, I think. In times of stress and international pressure you need cool, sharp pro’s to advise you.
But Mo and Fink are buddies – maybe they will bring back Fink as legal beagle : Who would then have the Pres’s ear regarding all legal aspects, also on judicial appointments. { He won’t hand the PAC the CJ’ship.}
We need an international quality CC. Not one comprising of unknown nincompoops [ in general, not implying whatsever that Moseneke is one.]
Mpho,
I am not keen on it. I am not saying Msholozi should be given amnesty, I am saying charges should be dropped.
To Henri
I do not know if Henri’s assertion about legal advisors performance has anything to do with the race or gender of all legal advisor involved. So I am going to answer him purely on events and decisions that had to take place. Firstly, the fact that Mandela was dragged into court by Louis Luyt and was humiliated the way he was, spoke volumes of the competency of his legal people. It does not matter what the circumstances were, Mandela should have never taken the stand. Secondly, Mandela has been in a drawn out legal battle with a former lawyer of his whom he accuses of not being honest. My point is, Mandela is hardly a good portrait for picking legal advisors.
Msholozi is not and has never been president. So you cannot tell us how his legal advisors would act when he is asked to make presidential decisions.
Mbeki lawyers on the other hand, had to advise him through fighting the malice called corruption, long standing struggle relationships and a teething nation. To me that makes avoiding Louis Luyt excesses a walk in the park. Maybe it is the African-ness of the talent that Mbeki employs in anything he does that makes people think the advice incompetent. And the Africans can never be ‘cool and sharp’ pros. I wonder how, in ‘international pressure’, they managed to advise Mbeki into placing Africa where no one had before, on the world stage.
greetings from zim
well i gues its time zuma made the hard decisions in relation to zuma. anywhere just to go off topic, zim is heading to civil war and its because of the lack of hard deceions that we are heading in that direction. Pof i really would have liked to have posted in your previous posts but the internet connection is bad this side so i guess the likes of khosi were spared my postings.
Mqo,
Can we please stick to the subject!!! There are other Zim postings that you can use to address the ‘likes of khosi’.
I thank you
This is a watershed moment. Are we going to live by the rule of law with the independent functioning institutions of a democracy, or do we just piss it all away for short term political expediency and head on down Africa’s well trodden slippery slope.
Re the arms deal amnesty suggestion – I just cannot see any politician making a full disclosure and admission of guilt of his/her crimes (if they had committed any) to qualify for amnesty. That would be political suicide. This idea is, to my mind, completely unworkable and dead in the water. Msholozi knows he is better off trying to muscle his way clear without ever having to admit guilt. If found guilty he knows he will be pardoned in any event (and I would support that pardon given his past service to the nation).
Khosi, I think you have been unnecessarily harsh with Mqo, remember you have also at times veered off the subject in other blogs. Furthermore, if you have read Mqo’s explanation about the bad internet connections in Zim, you would have understood his posting better – any IT Buff will tell you, on a bad connection, one page on a blog takes ages to open and to access. But I like it when you are losing your temper – it is then that your arguments become nonsensical and ripe for the picking. You view of how the case against JGZ should be handled is absurd. It is like saying, “[w]here politicians are concerned, there is no rule of law, the electorate will sort them out”. That is, at least, how I understood your earlier post on the Zuma issue below. What utter nonsense!! Politicians are not elevated above the law, and they (and prospective future politicians) should never be made to understand that. That is when you get dictatorships, like in Zim, where the law becomes rather selective – and the electorate becomes powerless to sort things out. (So you see, there is a connection between the two subjects!) Furthermore, I doubt very much that the current voting system in SA is conducive of morally calling politicians to book where they have misbehaved. A (moral) person voting for the ANC (because it believes in the ANC policies) may still hope that the party leadership will not appoint JZ as the party’s (or even the state’s) leader, which have already been proven to be farcical at Polokwane. Even intellectuals the likes of you cannot really decide who you want to vote for, because you so strongly believe in the party’s policies. [May I remind you that when Z asked you on the previous post whether you would vote for JZ, you said that your Provincial vote will be for the ANC, but that you have not made up your mind about the national ballot - implying that, regardless of the criminality of the party's leader, you would (or might) still vote for the party.] The current ‘party-list’ system leaves the voter with only two choices, vote for the party he/she believes in, or don’t vote for that party (i.e., either abstain or vote for another party). The party-list decides on who the politicians are that will lead the party (and the state). Moreover, there are many others in SA today who don’t agree with the ANC leadership in many respects (e.g., those dissapointed in the housing provisioning issues, the people of Khutsong, etc) but they don’t know a thing about calling a political party to book (because its leaders have sinned) by not voting for it. Do you really think that the South African electorate has it in it to outvote someone they don’t agree with, if that someone was an important roleplayer in leading them through the struggle? (This is where JZ’s immaculate use of Awuleth’ Umshini wami comes in.) Your and TM’s stance on Zim, the ‘Old Boys Club’ as Patricia De Lille calls it – where no-one dares go against Bob Mugabe because he was a comrade (one of the ‘old boys’) in the liberation struggle, is a prime example of this mentality. (Once again the connection with Zim, you see?)
Rat,
I was being sardonic with Mqo.
As for the rest of you post, I think its the best piece of analysis that any one person has every managed in politics. They should give you a Nobel prize for literature. Absolute Nobility.
Ya,ya,ya…
eTV has to recover from Debra Patta’s embarrassment last night…how desperate…
Pierre,
I’m starting to believe now that I know where your bread is buttered. Your tag team move with eTV to discredit Zuma’s legitimate concern is laughable. The direction to which you are trying to shape this matter, exposes your primary motives to the core.
1. Does JZ not have an interest in the shenanigans around Hlope and the Concourt?
2. Is there a law that prohibits the litigants to express their discomforts to any court if and when they arise?
3. Is JZ wrong for “rightfully” putting through to the Concourt that their credibility has come under question since the Hlope saga. That is the truth and nothing but the truth so help me GOD! Many people believe so. Thanks GOD JZ had the balls to put it in black and white and in their face.
4. What exactly constitutes a “threat”, what exactly is “shocking”; and what exactly is irregular about the letter? Did the ALMIGHTY JZ say: “YOU BETTER RULE IN MY FAVOR OR ELSE MALEMA WILL KILL YOU”
I have only one word to describe you and eTV’s conduct…PATHETIC…you seriously undermine the intelligence of the masses.
Word of warning… don’t get too occupied on Zuma… there are many more dedicated revolutionaries on the way, and your “irregular” and “shocking” conduct is continuing to “harden” their views. You are creating a situation that likely to be unbearable for your offspring.
I’m delighted that JZ’s legal team is beginning to adopt an offensive approach. It seems his latest (and legitimate) court application (http://www dot friendsofjz dot co dot za/documents/Zuma%20Review%20Application.doc) and now this particular letter to the Concourt; has left his enemies shaking in their boots.
Admit it Pierre, you are scared to hell together with your handlers (open to correction but I doubt). Victory is definitely near.
Setumo, you aspiring for CJ-ship or something?
Khosi, picture it: “Rat awarded Nobel” (And, JZ being handcuffed and led in chains to Polsmoor in front of international TV.)
Nah..I’m aspiring for the counter-revolutionaries to be exposed!
Oh, I thought Hlophe JP might have some stiff competition with such toadyness emanating from your PC
“A (moral) person voting for the ANC (because it believes in the ANC policies) may still hope that the party leadership will not appoint JZ as the party’s (or even the state’s) leader”
Hey! That’s me!
Any of the other legal minds on here also read the application mentioned by Setumo?
I have asked Pierre to look at it, but it is kind of long. Any of our bright legals have time to read it and comment? Mouse, Mpho, Khosi, Henri, Osbourne, et al?
www DOT friendsofjz DOT co DOT za/documents/Zuma%20Review%20Application.doc
Zuma mentions the political motives for charging him, but falls short in naming names. But in his reference to time lines:
5 June 2005 asked to step down.
14 June Mbeki fires him and says he mustl have his day in court.
20 June Pikoli charges him, and claims not to have spoken to the president about it.
Zuma asks, how the president could say he would have his day in court before being charged.
So it looks, I am not saying it does, but it looks like he points the finger to Mbeki. that is true, so much for the letter about no divisions. If not I still don’t know who is supposed to be behind this, althought some POSSIBLE intimation goes Pikoli’s way.
Setumo, why are you coming here to debate with intelligent people and spluttering all those threats? It’s ugly, man. Use your intelligence wisely and not for the betterment of sullied people. Ultimately you will not be rewarded for it.
Would that be the same Pikoli who was suspended by Mbeki? I see JZ’s target has switched from Manduna to Kasrils to Mbeki’s lackey to Mbeki. Where next I wonder!
z/ is the crux of his application, the Head of the NPA can’t charge me because he didn’t ask me if it was ok to do that?
z,
That arguement fails to hold, because Selebi’s sequence of events were exactly the same. I have always told people that Pikoli’s approach to the Selebi arrest left a lot to be desired.
Correction:
“that is true, so much for the letter about no divisions. If not I still don’t know who is supposed to be behind this”
IF that is true…
Mpho
This is from the application:
————————————–
Section 179 (5) of the Constitution provides as follows:-
…
5) The National Director of Public Prosecutions-
…
(d) may review a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute, after consulting the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions and after taking representations within a period specified by the National Director of Public Prosecutions, from the following:
(i) The accused person.
…
————————————–
The basic argument is that he never got a chance to make representations after they decided to recharge him.
The other part is the political conspiracy stuff. He goes into a long discussion of the history of events to show how it must have been politically motivated.
Khosi
Suffice it to so, that I am paraphrasing a small part of his whole argument. But that is the part that makes me think he is alluding to Mbeki.
Oh yea, Kasrils is also mentioned. But it is hard to determine what he insinuates about them, because no accusations are made directly, except the usual vague “political motivations”.
Z, he falls short of mentioning names, because, don’t you see, these people walk around in tyhe dark, you don’t know who they are, you just know you have to take up arms against them to protect yourself 9and your leaders)?
The document also mentions those who influence actions of prosecuting authorities:
—————————–
In dealing with these events I shall endeavour to steer away in so far feasible from contentious issues such as the political motives and stratagems which I verily believe were and are the driving forces behind many of the actions of the prosecuting authorities and those who influence these. This avoidance must not be construed in any manner as an acceptance by myself that the process was regular and not tainted by political motives, stratagems, considerations and undertones.
—————————–
Z, I was just joking – I’m thinking and I will perhaps respond on JZ’s application tomorow – perhaps Pprof de Vos will open a new discussion?
Where is this ‘breaking news story’ that we were promised?
Can somebody please get us thee LETTER. I just read about it over here. I want to engage about that letter. please Pierre post it for us.
@Mpho,
I, the “unintelligent” have a right to project my view even among the “intelligent” if and when my right to vote my desired president is frustrated by intelligent people who stupidly twist the truth to suit their agenda.
PS: If you have nothing to say with regard to my argument, exercise the intelligent option to reserve your view. I could tell you how lowly I think of your disturbed attitude but that would not even begin to address the issue at hand now would it?
Setumo, you were writing in an intimidating manner. Have you and your JZ Friends really abandoned all hope of fair play and now just randomly fire off threats and intimidation as a matter of course?
You have won nothing yet. And at this rate you are losing the support of many ANC members. People just don’t like to be associated with hooligans. It is ghastly having to see young men thinking that they can threat and bully when male bullying lies at the heart of so much which is wrong in this country (for examle the levels of gender based violence black women have to endure).
@Mpho,
OK.
I began by saying drop the charge against Msholozi and let the electorate decide this case.
I am now saying:-
The ANC needs Mbeki to campaign for it in next election. Mbeki is what the electorate know. Twice he raised the ANC share of the electorate when so called pundits were pointing in a different direction.
Mpho I have to disgree with you. The way you engage others who do not agree with you is not on. Were have you been, your cronnies realy misled you, we won the rape case, we won the alliance, we won polokwane ( most significance) we won Petermaritzburg 1 ( yes its true we are winning the countries confidence by day regardless of the third force) and gain let me say it aloud prepare your self Mpho WE SHALL WIN PETERMARTIZBURG 2. it feels good to be ANC call me
T
“Word of warning… don’t get too occupied on Zuma… there are many more dedicated revolutionaries on the way, and your “irregular” and “shocking” conduct is continuing to “harden” their views. You are creating a situation that likely to be unbearable for your offspring.”
I despise it when white men spout white supremacy nonsense. But I equally despise it when intelligent young black men try to threaten and intimidate. In a Constitutional Democracy NO ONE NEEDS TO BE THREATENING ANYONE OR ANYONE’S CHILDREN. Shame on you.
ps “We” won the rape case? What on earth are you talking about? The rape case was about him and the little girl he’d been screwing around with and then tossed her aside. You want to involve yourself in that domestic drama? Be my guest, but don’t ask the rest of us to take part in that sordid nonsense.
Mpho
(This might be a side issue but..)
“It is ghastly having to see young men thinking that they can threat and bully when male bullying lies at the heart of so much which is wrong in this country (for examle the levels of gender based violence black women have to endure).”
I think that is well said. We have one of the highest rape stats in the world and the other day a study showed that many black young women don’t even interpret some rape scenarios as really being rape. We knew the stats were skewed, due to non-reporting now even more.
This is what bothers me about many of the young guys who are revolutionaries looking for a cause. The intimidation, the unanswerable conspiracies and the vocabularies bordering on military propaganda.
I notice that eTV has now changed the caption of the letter story from “Shock Zuma letter” to “Zuma letter to the constitutional court”. It is really embarrassing.
I must say I’m highly disappointed that Pierre became party to this injustice and distortion of the truth.
Setumo, for there to be counter revolutionaries there needs to be a revolution.
Please explain to us what is this revolution trying to achieve, is it a communist state? A racial Africanist state? A gangster non state? An Arnarchist state? A kleptocracy?
It certainly can not be plural social-democracy based on the rule of law. Because that is what we are supposed to have.
Secondly, I have a question for you. surely the elction of Zuma, was more a school of thought, than just a cult of personality. Why is Zuma so all important. Is there not other good leaders in the movement that could do the job? Can you explain?
The revolution is about delivering on the objectives of the Freedom Charter.
Zuma is an icon of the mass power base, who stand against the domination of an elite group (whether black or white). A defeat to Zuma will be a defeat to the masses.
Friends,
Section 179(5) of the Constitution is applicable when a Provincial Director of Prosecutions has either decided to or not to prosecute an individual. In reviewing that decision, the National Director is then required to consult the accused.
In the Zuma case, the National Director charged Zuma and is now charging him again, he is not reviewing a decision of his subordinate.
just to add…
My feeling is that there should be no presidential candidate who is forced down the people’s throats.
The media, the minority elite and the so-called intellectuals have been attacking Jacob Zuma from all corners, trying to discredit him as a presidential candidate, while punting their own favorite individuals. They wanted Ramaphosa, at some point Sexwale, once it was Netshitenzhe now its Motlanthe.
The masses are not stupid and neither are they gullible. We will not vote for a president that is chosen and prescribed for us by the media, elites and intellectuals.
Z,
On your 3:48 – post:
I think the factual question is whether some lower official or the national director ever decided “not to prosecute – which then was reviewd by the national director. I don’t follow the saga that closely but can’t remember that happened. Some NPD judge threw out the case – isn’t it? Then it was a new decision to prosecute where audi alteram doesn’t apply and section 179[5] also not.
Remember the definition of “administrative action” [ which is subject to review for not adhering to audi - rules ] specifically excludes :
“[ff} a decision to institute or continue a prosecution;”
So on a rough and tumble call and shooting from the hip on a moving target, the application has no prospect of success – and might be a delaying tactic.
Henri,
No. Remember Ngquka decided that although there was a “prima facie” case he was not going to prosecute Zuma. Pikoli then reversed that and prosecuted him. At the NPD the matter was struck from the roll after an application by the State for a postponement was refused. Pikoli then simply decided to re-charge Zuma. This latest decision to charge has not been a review of a decison made by a Provincial DPP.
Patrick
Thanks, interesting.
Henri
“Remember the definition of “administrative action””
Sorry remember does not apply to me as I did not study law. I am merely working at this from my limited layman’s perspective, hence the questions.
Patrick, I understand. However, when Pikoli was suspended, was Mpshe not required to reconsider (review) Pikoli’s decision to prosecute Zuma (together with the review of the Selebi prosecution)? If so, in terms of which constitutional mandate was that done?
Patrick,
Sorry, that’s of course the definition of “administrative action ” in PAJA.
So when the court tossed aside the Zuma prosecution, it was finished / nothing left / finite. Fullstop. The decision to prosecute was set aside.
If there is then a new decision to charge Zuma, its a new decision like any other. Not a review of a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute for purposes of s 179[5]. So audi – rules does not apply to it according to PAJA.
I still stand to be corrected on the facts, but as currently advised the application is a transparent tongue in the cheek long shot.
And when an acting NDP went into Pikoli’s post it was seamless – no requirement to do over whatever he previously did. So his previous decisions just stand and the acting guy goes on.
Z, Henri, Patrick – I have now read through Zuma’s affidavit, and here is my take.
(1) Firstly, I must agree with you Patrick – s 179(5) of the Constitution that Zuma relies on to argue that the recent decision to prosecute him amounts to a ‘review’ of the earlier decision not to prosecute (which, according to him is not valid because he has not had the chjance to make representations to the NDPP) is not applicable. This is so because there was no question of a decision of a Provincial DPP being reviwed when Pikoli decided to re-instate the prosecution. The case was subsequently struck off the roll by Msimang J in the NPD.
(2) The original decision not to prosecute JZ in August 2003 was the NDPP’s (then Ngcuka) decision [which accrues to him by virtue of s 179(2) read with s 179(1)(a) and s 179(5)(c)], and not that of a Provincial NDPP, which has been ‘reviewed’ by Ngcuka. He has merely intervened when the Head of the DSO (then Leonard McCarthy) was still contemplating whether to charge Shaik alone or whether Zuma had to be charged with him, and did not ‘review’ Leaonard McCathy’s decision to prosecute or not to prosecute.
(3) By the same token, Pikoli’s decision to later charge him again did not amount to a ‘review’ of the erstwhile NDPP’s decision not to prosecute at that stage. One must remember that Ngcuka’s reasons not to prosecute JZ were controversial to begin with, because in his own words, there was a prima facie case that would justify a prosecution of Zuma, but that he nevertheless decided not to prosecute him at that stage. Furthermore, he never ruled out a renewed prosecution of JZ. In Zuma’s own affidavit [para 38(k), this part of Ngcuka’s statement of 23 August is highlighted: “Ngcuka did thereafter in response to questions from the press, inform the press that if circumstances changed in the sense of more and better evidence against me becoming available, the decision not to prosecute me would be re-visited and re-considered. His public statement and press release (“D”) had however made it very clear that the investigation against me had been completed. The reason for its non-continuation is expressly stated in par 33 thereof.” Thus, when the Shaik case provided stronger evidence of a corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma that existed before Shaik was prosecuted, Ngcuka (if he was still the NDPP) would have been entitled by his own account to revisit his (and Leonard McCarthy’s joint) decision not to prosecute. The mere fact that he was later replaced by Pikoli (and Pikoli replaced by Mpshe) makes no difference to this. The fact that, after Zuma’s case had been struck off the roll by Msimang J also has no effect on this construction of what happened, and the fact that he is now charged again merely means that the Prosecution (the State represented by the NPA) is now ready to proceed with the prosecution, whereas, when the matter was still before Msimang J, it was not.
(4) A DPP’s (and a NDPP’s) decsion not to prosecute at a certain stage is not necessarily a final decision not to prosecute (where a certificate nolle prosequi is issued, which would enable a private prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution), but it may simply be a decision not to do so at that stage (due to a lack of evidence, policy considerations or just because it would be better to wait and see if a court accepts the NPA’s case against the other accused). Such a decision can of course be re-called and changed at any stage if stronger evidence comes to the fore or if policy considerations now justify a prosecution. That does not amount to a ‘review’ in the purview of s 179(5)(d) of the Constitution (s 22(2) of the NPA Act 32 of 1998) as alleged by Zuma.
His affidavit is therefore defective on this score. For a High Court to intervene in the NDPP’s decision to institute prosecution would require more than political expediency; the ANC’s and ANCYL’s (and other Friends of JZ’s) public woefull wailings and threats of a renewed armed struggle (or revolution – Setumo!); or, even wild allegations of a political conspiracy without being able to name the actual conspirators and/or without being able to deny the allegations. If he want’s to make out a case that the case is nothing but a conspiracy to get him into trouble, he will have to test the allegations against him in a court of law, to see whether they are false and mere allegations, or true and evidence. Then he can just as well go to court and face his accusers before a court of law. But, instituting frivolous review applications like the current does nothing moore than to waste taxpayers’ money and the state’s resources. His actions to stop the prosecution, come what may, surely gives rise that he does not have a valid defence and that he is in fact guilty.
Sorry for all the spelling and typing errors in the above as I was making great haste.
z
“This is what bothers me about many of the young guys who are revolutionaries looking for a cause. The intimidation, the unanswerable conspiracies and the vocabularies bordering on military propaganda.”
And to think I was trying to bring you to order for suggesting that our young men had a tendency to act in such a way! Then look at how they conduct themselves!
I apologise for what I said to you, but I am sorry that you appear to have been right. That is where the true tragedy lies.
Mouse, this is great. Why don’t we all work on an article on this to take the heat off Pierre (who really was highlighted as a force of darkness on the FofJZ site. Wessel can tell us how we get published since his stuff was up on a site last week. Then we can sit back and wait to be labelled counter-revolutionaries!
Setumo, I think you will find the masses don’t even care that much about Zuma. They care about a better life for all no matter who delivers it.
Don’t underestimate the intelligence of the masses or you’ll be in for a rude awakening.
“”While the leader was loudly welcomed by the crowd — packed into a small community centre — he received an unusually tough response as members demanded the government deal with the influx of foreigners.
A young man shouting from the back of the hall urged Zuma to ensure government kept out foreigners from neighbouring countries.
“You talk to (Zimbabwe President Robert) Mugabe, you talk to (Mozambique President Armando) Guebuza. Tell them to tell their people they must not harass us in our country. This is our country.”
He said foreigners in the country were “riding on the gravy train”.
“We are looking to make you our president (in 2009 elections) so beware. If you are a stumbling block, we are going to kick you away,” the man warned, as the crowd erupted with deafening support for the sentiments.” “
In addition to what I have said above it may perhaps just be stated that, it happens every day that people charged with whatever opffences approach the relevant DPP by means of a ‘representation’ to review his/her (or his/her delegate’s) earlier decision to prosecute.(The most common example would be representations regarding so-called ‘traffic fines’.) Even complainants regularly approach DPP’s with requests that a decision not to prosecute either be reviewed or that a certificate nolle prosequi be issued so that the complainant can consider whether to institute private prosecution. This rule of practice dates from long before our current Constitution, and nothing in the Constitution changed it. In terms of this rule of practice, everyone who feels aggrieved by a DPP’s (or his/her delegate’s) decision to prosecute or not to prosecute has a right to approach the relevant DPP (in this case, the NDPP) with a representation to reconsider his/her decision, and need not rely on s 179(5)(d) of the Constitution to do so. The audi alteram partem principle would, however, in such a case demand that the other roleplayers will also have to be heard before a renewed decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is made. (In fact, all s 179(5)(d) does, is to make the audi alteram principle applicable to a situation where another person approaches the NDPP with a request to review his/her delegate’s earlier decision, or where the NDPP does so out of his/her own accord. This is not the case here as it is the NDPP’s own decision on the facts available on the docket to prosecute Zuma. No prosecutor needs to consult the accused before the latter is prosecuted.) As far as can be ascertained, JZ has not made a representation to the NDPP in this regard. Instead, he has now decided to apply directly to court for a review of the NDPP’s decision to prosecute him, without having afforded the NDPP an opportunity to consider his representation as to why he should not be prosecuted and to decide whether his decision to prosecuute should be confirmed or re-called. That is putting the cart before the horse (jumping the gun, or, whatever); and, no reasonable court would ever review the decision of a decisionmaker unless it is a final decision after having already considered the representation. And then still, mere allegations of a conspiracy will not be enough with which to review a decision, a basis will have to be laid, such as that the person making the representation has a valid defence or excuse. It would to the contrary appear that JZ has no valid defence or excuse available to him with which to avoid being convicted if charged. If he had, one would have expected him to present that to the NDPP and, if the latter still decides to proceed, to the trial court – rather than trying his utmost to keep the whole thing out of court (and public scrutiny). Even if there is a conspiracy, the evidence and the facts will in the end determine whether he is guilty or not, regardless of the conspiracy; unless, of course the evidence has been fabricated in furtherance of the conspiracy, which surely is not the case here (because then Shabir Shaik would have been involved in conspiring against ZJ – framed him, as it were – which is so improbable it borders on a fairy tale).
Mpho
“I apologise for what I said to you, but I am sorry that you appear to have been right. That is where the true tragedy lies.”
Accepted, and I understood where your arguments came from. Sorry for deviating from my normal avoidance of directed use of ad hominem. You are right though: “That is where the true tragedy lies.”
And contrary to Setumo, I believe they are a minority, but unfortunately it only takes a small group of people to do serious damage (ask Executive Outcomes).
I always say in conflict it is not the strongest who wins, but the one who is willing to go the furthest. (If I am only willing to go as far as a fist fight and you bring a gun…)
My main purpose for suggesting that thread was to ask “What is going to prevent violence from happening?” I did not provide any of the answers I had in mind beforehand though, since I wanted to hear what others had to say. I believe that the ANC has enough strong leaders who can start reigning in this tide if they see the need or believe in doing so and then handle it in a nice way (just getting rid of them will only strengthen their sense of persecution). But then they would need to take it seriously.