Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation. This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.
When Mr Jacob Zuma’s lawyer was asked about the origins of the tapes illegally and criminally handed over to the Zuma camp and then used by the NPA to drop charges against Mr Zuma he said that attorney-client priviledge prevented him from saying where the tapes came from.
Who is Mr Hulley’s client whom he is protecting?
Seems to me it is reasonable to ask whether Mr Hulley gave away the game with this comment. It strongly suggests that the tapes come from Mr Zuma himself. Could that be why there is attorney-client priviledge between the person handing over the tapes and Mr Hulley who received them. Or does Mr Hulley have other clients who have an interest in this case. Can he claim attorney-client priviledge when he was party to a crime and or covering up a crime?
So, when will the police begin investigating this crininal act of handing over and receiving the tapes? Will the NPA ever charge Mr Hulley and or Zuma or any other client of Mr Hulley for this criminal act?
I am sure they will. And I am sure Thabo Mbeki will soon admit that he was wrong on HIV and Aids, Xolela Mangcu will give his shares back to Tokyo Sexwale and the Independent Democrats will win the election.BACK TO TOP