The Mail & Guardian reports that the Mauritian prime minister, Navinchandra Ramgoolam, has denied being asked by Jacob Zuma to “intervene” in the African National Congress (ANC) president’s legal fracas on the Indian Ocean island.
No, he didn’t ask me to assist him in his case. We can’t assist him, even had he asked. He came to see me, to call on me when he was here in Mauritius to say, just to tell me … what he was doing, that he wanted to challenge in court and I explained to him that in Mauritius we have a very independent judiciary, that he has to go through the court system and the courts will decide; nothing more than that.
This seems to suggest that my previous post about Mr Zuma’s trip might have been unfair. But when questioned about what prompted Ramgoolam’s comment to the Financial Times that “we don’t intervene”, his director of communication, Dan Callikan, said that Zuma “evoked his judicial problems” and Ramgoolam explained the Mauritian legal system to him.
So Mr Zuma did “evoke” his legal problems but did not directly ask for help. It is unclear why he would evoke his legal problems with the prime minister unless he was hoping that the prime minister might be of some use for him in this legal dealings. The prime minister obviously understood it that way otherwise he would not have felt the need to explain to Mr Zuma that he could not interfere.
At the very least Mr Zuma raised the legal problems with the prime minister and thus placed the prime minister in the difficult position of having to explain that he could not interfere. This is still inappropriate. If I were to bump into the Rector at a party and “evoke” my application for a promotion, it would be improper of me because I would at least subtly trying to gain an unfair and illegal advantage over others.
So, maybe my initial post was not so unfair to Mr Zuma after all but I am sure the good readers of this Blog will correct me if I am wrong.
Oh, no, Pierre! You were not wrong. In fact, your analysis was spot-on. “Evoke” his legal problems, hahaha. Nudge-nudge … wink-wink …! Jacob Zuma has no shame.
Dear Prof de Vos
With respect, it would seem that you are begging the question (para 3 and 4 above).
After objective reflection, there is little merit in concluding that Zuma intended on gaining the assistance of the prime minister by visiting him and explaining his presence in the country.
Zuma could be seen as respecting the prime minister by courteously and respectfully conveying the reasons he was visiting Mauritius, that is to ‘evoke his judicial problems’; nothing more, nothing less.
It would seem that your conclusions are speculative.
Regards,
Simon
I agree Prof – your initial and your above assertions have been and still are justified. When one goes on a legal mission to another state (to get the courts to grant an application suppressing one’s own courts’ orders), one (especially when one is the President- elect for the next term) simply does not go to the head of state or some other functionary in that country and then talk about your legal issues in their courts.