The arms deal corruption issue

[insulin]

I find it difficult to understand judgement in high profile cases like that of Zuma. However it is of note that Zuma have a lot power thus the dismantling of the scorpions.

Then there is the “Freedom and security of the person” Found in the Constitution Act of South Africa. You know the one that states that we are not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause!

Point it out: Without just cause??? Now being known for criminal activities an nationally known to be less then truthful and a lot of things that is a bit sensitive may be considered a just cause. Frankly the justice system had enough on Zuma to take him down a long time ago. But didn’t... Why?

I cannot answer that, but I do know that that little thing that I pointed out “Without Just Cause” was never used. Thus I lost faith in our Constitution.

Then there is the little matter of the right to privacy. You know the one that states that everyone has the right to privacy. Did you know that in the 3 or 4 pointers they state like: The right not to have: their person or home searched, their property searched, their possessions seized or the privacy of their communications infringed.

No-ware on the right to privacy is there a “Without just cause” If I am not mistaken that will make a search-warrant unconstitutional? Like I said I don’t understand this part at all.

Maybe someone can explain it but it comes down to this... there is not backdoor build into the right to privacy. Or there is and I am just stupid

[Dave A]

The angle that "in the interests of state security" is not a reason not to prosecute is interesting. However, "in the public interest" is also very broad and subjective.

Those links also blow the lid off the "innocent until proven guilty" rhetoric that gets trotted out by the spin doctors.

[insulin]

All I can say is that the law is more complicated than making gold. Really I had a look at some of the ways it is explained and I cannot make heads or tails of anything. However to be clear it is the general point of view that some politicians is getting away with a lot. And if they can other rich individuals can and if that starts to become the norm then justice is failing us all.

[Dave A]

That sums it up pretty well, Insulin

[Dave A]

Two good reads while we wait for the NPA announcement.

The case against Jacob Zuma and then an insight into the forces in play.

[Dave A]

For anyone interested, here is the full NPA statement as to why they are not prosecuting Jacob Zuma.

For those who would prefer something shorter, here we go:

The representations submitted by the legal representatives pertained to the following issues:

The substantive merits;

The fair trial defences;

The practical implications and considerations of continued prosecution; and

The policy aspects militating against prosecution.


I need to state upfront that we could not find anything with regard to the first three grounds that militate against a continuation of the prosecution, and I therefore do not intend to deal in depth with those three grounds.

I will focus on the fourth ground, which I consider to be the most pertinent for purposes of my decision. I will now deal with the policy aspects militating against the prosecution.

The statement then quotes numerous legal precedents and then transcripts of conversations that indicate abuse of process. This relates particularly to the timing of placing the charges against Zuma.

I don't think the precedents quoted do much to support the argument to drop the charges (in fact they seem to infer the exact opposite), but the transcripts certainly give evidence of partisan parties within the NPA and DSO - definitely not a healthy situation.

From there we get to the conclusion. And I'd like to focus on this bit:

In the light of the above, I have come to the difficult conclusion that it is neither possible nor desirable for the NPA to continue with the prosecution of Mr Zuma.

It is a difficult decision because the NPA has expended considerable resources on this matter, and it has been conducted by a committed and dedicated team of prosecutors and investigators who have handled a difficult case with utmost professionalism and who have not been implicated in any misconduct.

Let me also state for the record that the prosecution team itself had recommended that the prosecution should continue even if the allegations are true, and that it should be left to a court of law to decide whether to stop the prosecution.

However, I believe that the NPA has a special duty, as one of the guardians of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, to ensure that its conduct is at all times beyond reproach.

And so Mokotedi Mpshe paints himself with his own brush. I would suggest that the Director has argued against himself.

Is his dropping of the charges against Jacob Zuma beyond reproach?
Especially after arguing so eloquently that the NPA must pursue justice without fear or favour.

He freely concedes there are no mitigating circumstances i.r.o. the substantive merits, the fair trial defences and the practical implications and considerations of continued prosecution.

So we are left with his embarrassment. Isn't embarrassment a form of fear?

Now here is the kicker -
How can we ever see Director Mpshe's interpretation of justice tested in court?
Because let's face it, who's left to bring the charge?

If it was such a difficult decision, he should not have appointed himself as final arbiter in the matter and followed the advice of his prosecution team - and let the courts decide.

As the Director says, the NPA is one of the guardians of the constitution and Bill of Rights, not the final guardian.

[Graeme]

"Cry the beloved country"

[duncan drennan]

I'm angry. I'm very angry.

With the last week of wrangling I had already prepared myself for this, and wasn't surprised when the charges were dropped. What I was surprised by was how angry I got. I'm not even that angry about the decision, but rather about the process the resulted in this decision and the implications it has.

I'm angry that we have a one set of corrupt leaders taking over from another set of corrupt leaders. It has become quite clear that our government is not at all concerned with corruption. If they were we would have a whole different set of people in parliament.

I'm angry that we live in a society that is okay with this, a society which will continue to vote for a corrupt government – a government which is effectively stealing the food from their mouths, a government which will spend billions on useless weaponry to gain 4x4's and better houses rather than find ways to ensure that people have access to food, water and health care.

I am angry that there are companies and people who are more than willing to offer bribes and participate in the dance of corruption for their own selfish gains.

I'm angry that I live in a place where people come begging at my door for food and money, that I turn them away, and that this is acceptable. I am unhappy with the choices that I make in this regard (and that those choices are considered acceptable), and I am angry the people in high places concern themselves more with opportunistic gain than restoring dignity to broken people.

I am angry that after 15 years the opposition parties have not managed to establish themselves as viable/meaningful/believable options for the vast majority of our country's citizens and that people would choose not to vote instead of voting for an opposition party.

I am angry that people are stupid enough to choose to boycott voting rather than vote for something better or at least against what is not working. I am angry that this attitude has become ingrained into our society and that this works in the favour of the ruling party.

I am angry that I work hard, pay my taxes, do my best to produce things that add value to my clients' businesses and as a result to the country and that all of my hard work is undermined by the actions of corrupt and selfish people.

Today I feel like a second–class citizen – not because of race or class – but because of ethics and values that I fail to see reflected in our society.

[Dave A]

This is what makes me angry:

ANC treasurer-general Mathews Phosa said the NPA had finally seen the light.

"We have always said Zuma is innocent, and today it was the NPA who said it. We say to the NPA: at last you have seen the light, you have finally seen the truth," Phosa said.
from M&G story here

There are times when I wonder if JZ is the real problem here

Anyway - it seems both the DA and ID are investigating pursuing the matter rather vigorously.

[insulin]

Well you are innocent till proven guilty. Personally I feel cheated because all the complications and in the end everything about this JZ thing just feels fake...

However I did expected to see this outcome. I think a lot of us did. However JZ will always have this stigma glooming over him. And you are right JZ is not the problem here. The system is the problem. Face it Politicians in Africa is untouchable no matter how controversial they may be. I also lost faith in our court system because clearly money was just too great an adversary. Now the road is paved therefore others will follow... I lower my head in shame.

[Dave A]

Yolanda Young, ANC national executive member, said there was a need for a major clean up of the justice system, saying it was full of people who abused their positions.

Now this is where I get really nervous.

Obviously Yolanda is right - but it was the ANC machinery that deployed these people. Now they are going to clean house and be trusted to put in people who won't abuse their positions?

Look at the failure to reinstate Pikoli, a decision that has proved key to the NPA dropping the Zuma charges. Was that done in the best interests of an independent NPA? Or was that political interference to keep a man out who has clearly demonstrated his willingness to act without fear or favour?

[garthu]

I think we all angry! Worried, afraid of consequences here. If anything, take at least this one positive issue away. A poll conducted by IOL has come back that 12% of people feeling good about this and Zuma... (crazy idiots of little perception and ANC beneficiaries no doubt) but the rest are sorely disappointed and feel that he is unsuitable now as a leader, even saw a few comments from people claiming to be "die hard ANC activists" saying they are disappointed.

It really is becoming possible that so much damage is being done, that they may actually do themselves in here.... hang on to that thought as a little positivity. It really could result in something!

[insulin]

See the scorpions are a good example of what the ANC can do. The moment they pointed out corrupted ANC members they were taken down. See I will always come back to my point and that is law is no longer law it is what the ANC say it is! Because they are government they expect immunity and will have immunity. The truth is that corruption is a perk and they will use it to benefit themselves. So the question is not government but the system that governs government. That system is failing the country right now with effects unknown... If JZ becomes president and stays president after the election what country will invest in us? If the UN had any moral standing they will not do business with us and boycott the living hell out of us. But if they do business with us... I think you know what that means and what it symbolises.

[duncan drennan]

Here is the logical reasoning that many people had hoped for, but we did not see.

What should happen is that Mr McCarthy and Bulelani Ngcuka should be investigated to find out whether they breached the NPA act which prohibits interference in its work. Mr Zuma and his lawyer, Mr Hulley should also be investigated because they had in their possession recordings which were criminally handed over to them and they might well be guilty as accomplices in the commission of a crime that carries a ten year prison sentence.

Third, if one tries o fit in the reasoning of the NPA into the prosecuting policy – which unlike precedent from colonial Britain the NPA is actually legally bound by – it is difficult to see how a decision not to charge Mr Zuma under these circumstances can be justified in relation to this prosecution policy.

[insulin]

True but the thing is JZ is government and nothing that government do is ever illegal! No! It is always misunderstood in some strange obscure way... there are no criminals in government just a lot of misunderstood people with strange ways of getting more money...