The recommendation for criminal charges is particularly applicable to Mr Anoj Singh and Mr Koko, who by false pretences led Eskom, through the officials who processed the R659 million payment, to believe that the R659 million payment was in the nature of pre-payment for coal, as was the R1.68 billion pre-payment, later converted into a guarantee, when in truth and fact they knew that the prepayment and the guarantee were needed to enable the Guptas to complete and save the sale of share transaction.
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