Comments on: Zuma’s troubling trip to Mauritius

By: Simon Dippenaar

Simon Dippenaar — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:11:43 +0000

The premise on which your disapproval rests may not be as firmly established as you might think. What was the context in which the Prime Minister said what he said about ANC President Jocab Zuma’s litigation. Was it brought up by the former himself, or was it an opening line initiated by the Prime Minister himself in way of clearing the air between the two of them, before going onto other matters. Context is important here!

With respect Prof de Vos, none of us at this point in time can conclude for certain that ANC president Jacob Zuma brought up the matter with the Prime Minister from the brief quote supplied.

Let us reserve our better judgement when the whole picture emerges.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:16:33 +0000

What a disgrace!!!

By: Clara

Clara — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:15:13 +0000

“Corruption is a personal charge …” My thoughts exactly. Why do taxpayers have to cough up for politicians’ legal expenses? Take Jacob Zuma’s case: if, as Montana says, he was “acting in the course and scope of his duty as an MEC and Deputy President”, he wouldn’t have got himself into this pickle in the first instance. Seeing as he wasn’t, and assuming he has no money, surely it is then up to his party, the ANC, to dig into its own coffers (which should be well-filled by all accounts) to pay for his exorbitantly expensive legal representatives? The nine million bucks was claimed solely (!) for Zuma’s defence in the state’s aborted corruption case against him in 2006.

Are there any hard and fast rules at all about who has to pay in such instances? As a taxpayer, I’m beginning to run out of generosity.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:16:38 +0000

The way things are going now – with Luthuli House prescribing to both the Executive and Parliament – one cannot really sepatrate state from party – and we are not really living in a democracy. But that is the system’s fault. What I was trying to say by the remark you quote (however, only partially), is that, unless the NPA prosecutes JZ and secures a conviction with mandatory prison sentence; or, failing that, unless the majority of the masses do not vote for the ANC in the next election (thereby in practice electing JZ as the next President of SA), we will all have good reason (in the light of the recent happenings) to be ashamed of(and will be sold out to) the wiles (‘skelmstreke’) of the person of JZ, who will then be our (corrupt?) President. We will be the laughing stock of the world.

By: khosi

khosi — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:38:17 +0000

Faceless one,

But you are failing to separate party from state. The ANC is a party and party members democratically elected their leaders. That has nothing to do with the general election.

Whether the general population supports the results of the democratic Polokwane process is another matter that, at present, also has nothing to do with the relationship between Parliament and Luthuli house.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:11:59 +0000

Khosi

One must remember that, compared to the millions of voters who voted for the ANC in the general election, only a handful delegates, some whose delegations were dubious, got to vote at Polokwane – and that is not necessarily what the majority of demos on the ground wanted. (In other words, what we had at Polokwane was a so-called democracy-within-democracy, but only a selected few got to vote in a way that does not necessarily reflect what the masses at grass-roots level wanted.) That is why it has been pointed out by Prof De Vos and others before on this blog – that a Parliament toeing the line of Luthuli House is in conflict with true democracy.

By: frank cobain

frank cobain — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:04:33 +0000

I think the major reason that people aren’t protesting in the streets is because they’ve come to accept that this is Jacob Zuma being well, Jacob Zuma. The belief that they cannot do anything about it is all pervasive. The people of South Africa feel disenfranchised, they feel they have no say in the leaders being elected to supposedly represent their interests.

By: khosi

khosi — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:13:23 +0000

Faceless one,

Please explain this: ‘undemocratically elected NEC of the ANC’.

Maybe I was dreaming last year in December.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:18:36 +0000

Clara:
Thanks for the enlightenment. Even the more reason to feel extremely ashamed at and uncomfortable with the wiles of RSA’s future leader if the NPA does not step up its act to prosecute before the next election; and, if the majority of voters still vote for the ANC at the next election, thereby supporting the undemocratically elected NEC of the ANC.

By: Montana

Montana — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:18:32 +0000

Why is the state paying for JZ’s defence? Was he acting in the course and scope of his duty as an MEC and Deputy President? Surely not … corruption is a personal charge …