What if Zuma pleads guilty to all charges?

You know the other day I was thinking what could be done to not have Zuma as our next president, that's assuming of course that the ANC wins next year's election.

A lot of "educated" South Africans don't like and trust Zuma (myself included), he doesn't have morals, he doesn't have policies, he is corrupt, he has no respect for the law and he is guilty of all the charges that the NPA has against him. That's what I think of Zuma.

As human beings, it is traditionally acceptable to bad mouth a person like Zuma, attack his character (even though he is solely to blame for his own character assassination), discredit him and just to label him in a bad way. But I sometimes fail to see what good that will do, especially with the Zuma situation.

He is president of the biggest political party in this country, next year chances are good that he will be our next president. The way I see it, attacking him won't do any good unless the international community criticises him and pressures him to step down as ANC president, but that's not happening because he hasn't been found guilty yet and he therefore hasn't done anything wrong, he is still an innocent man.

Here's what I was thinking the other day, what if someone (it doesn't matter if that someone is from the ANC or if that someone is just a normal South African citizen) pleads with Zuma to plead guilty to all the charges against him, step down as ANC president, go to jail and therefore squash all this political uncertainty. How feasible is that? It is almost impossible that Zuma will do that, well I know some of you may even say that it is downright impossible.

I was just thinking that someone will either write a letter to Zuma or talk to Zuma in person and tell him that he plead guilty. Maybe the person may say something like: "I am a concerned South African, I am concerned that you are ANC president and also have charges of corruption against you by the NPA. I am concerned that next year you will be president of the ANC and also spend a lot of your time with lawyers instead of doing a duty as president of South Africa."

"I respect you for what you have done in the struggle against apartheid; you went to jail simply because you believed that each and every South African deserves to have rights. We are a new South Africa now; you and other freedom fighters have succeeded in giving freedom to everyone. But there are a lot of challenges facing South Africa today, poverty, unemployment, crime, corruption, AIDS, etc."

"A lot of people are convinced that you are guilty of corruption, so, Mr. Zuma if indeed you are guilty or corruption wouldn’t be in the best interest of South Africa for you to plead guilty? Don't you think it would set a president whereby corruption will be rooted out of government? Don't you think that the international community will applaud you for pleading guilty to all charges? The way I see it Mr. Zuma, the international community will respect you for doing that, South Africans will respect you for doing that, simply because no powerful figure has done it before. Mandela is respected world wide for bringing peace to South Africa and he is one of a few who have done that."

Hey guys, what I have wrote above sounds crazy huh? But tell me, how would you think of Zuma if he appears tomorrow on national TV or issues a statement to the press that he is pleading guilty to all the charges against him reason being that it's for the good of the nation? Would you respect him for doing that? Think about it.


"Only he/she who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible."

Sly21C said:

Hey guys, what I have wrote above sounds crazy huh? But tell me, how would you think of Zuma if he appears tomorrow on national TV or issues a statement to the press that he is pleading guilty to all the charges against him reason being that it's for the good of the nation? Would you respect him for doing that? Think about it.

Click to expand...

I would first take a stern look at my calender to make 100% sure its not April 1st.
Of course he would gain some of my respect by doing that despite this being in the fictional realm of Harry Potter.

Zenbaas said:

....fictional realm of Harry Potter.

Click to expand...

"Only he/she who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible."

Sly21C said:

"Only he/she who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible."

Click to expand...

So if you see anyone running with a broom.....

I hear what you are saying here, but to be realistic, I don't think that he will admit that he did commit any crime. If he does and be found guilty, he will not be able to become president of this country - the constitution forbids that.

It would be great for this country if he does admit to everything and plead guilty, but judging by history how he has fought not to be prosecuted, he will not do it!

Oh and I will still not have the slightest bit of respect for him.

Sly21C said:

"I respect you for what you have done in the struggle against apartheid; you went to jail simply because you believed that each and every South African deserves to have rights. We are a new South Africa now; you and other freedom fighters have succeeded in giving freedom to everyone. But there are a lot of challenges facing South Africa today, poverty, unemployment, crime, corruption, AIDS, etc."

"A lot of people are convinced that you are guilty of corruption, so, Mr. Zuma if indeed you are guilty or corruption wouldn’t be in the best interest of South Africa for you to plead guilty? Don't you think it would set a president whereby corruption will be rooted out of government? Don't you think that the international community will applaud you for pleading guilty to all charges? The way I see it Mr. Zuma, the international community will respect you for doing that, South Africans will respect you for doing that, simply because no powerful figure has done it before. Mandela is respected world wide for bringing peace to South Africa and he is one of a few who have done that."

Click to expand...

The reason why it won't work is because the mentality of Zuma and many others in the ANC is not to adhere to whats best for others and only themselves

Why don't we just get rid of the justice system in South Africa all together and tell everyone accused of a crime to just plead guilty, cause then we'll respect them a lot more and it will save us a lot of time, money and energy. Though we'll have to build bigger jails I guess...

Jacob Zuma probably won't be tried in court.

The chances are very strong that if his case does go to court, it will be bungled entirely. Also, the timelines play into Jacob Zuma's hands 100%. No corruption trial against him will be concluded in a year - and given the huge charge sheet, there will be many "trials within a trial" - each taking several weeks if not months to conclude.

I doubt that Jacob Zuma will be tried. There will be a plea bargain in the next few weeks, and Jacob Zuma will likely receive a slap on the wrist and be fined a few bob. Trial and attorney costs will be part of the plea bargain and basically all South Africans will have left to show for this is a hefty dent in the state coffers (i.e. tax payers' money).

Either way, Jacob Zuma will be president - unless the ANC aren't elected in the majority next year (which ain't likely to happen anyway).

I just hope the ANC does not win a 2/3rds majority - at least that's the only security we have that the constitution will remain in tact to protect the judiciary and press freedom.

Well if he does that the people will go ah that's real good of him to admit that, what a great guy, we need him as president. Which will then count in his favor, so who knows, maybe this is also part of his plan.

kingmonty said:

Jacob Zuma probably won't be tried in court.

The chances are very strong that if his case does go to court, it will be bungled entirely.
...
Trial and attorney costs will be part of the plea bargain and basically all South Africans will have left to show for this is a hefty dent in the state coffers (i.e. tax payers' money).
...

Click to expand...

I think that the case against him was bungled the day Shaik was formally charged and Zuma wasn't. It was bungled when Bulelani Ngcuka, the then national director of Public Prosecutions stated "…that there was prima facie evidence of corruption, but insufficient to win the case in court".
It was bungled when it was thrown out of court a year later in 2006 because the prosecution wasn't ready. The prosecution has bungled the case so that, along with all the media attention, it doubtful he could have a fair trial now imho...

joelus said:

I think that the case against him was bungled the day Shaik was formally charged and Zuma wasn't. It was bungled when Bulelani Ngcuka, the then national director of Public Prosecutions stated "…that there was prima facie evidence of corruption, but insufficient to win the case in court".
It was bungled when it was thrown out of court a year later in 2006 because the prosecution wasn't ready. The prosecution has bungled the case so that, along with all the media attention, it doubtful he could have a fair trial now imho...

Click to expand...

You see that's where Cosatu, the ANC and the SACP are wrong...

To even suggest, nay, hint that he can't have a fair trial because of media attention is in itself a dangerous precedent that strongly suggests we have a judiciary that is influenced by public opinion. Just the idea that we have such a judiciary implies we have a democracy that is in tatters.

kingmonty said:

You see that's where Cosatu, the ANC and the SACP are wrong...

To even suggest, nay, hint that he can't have a fair trial because of media attention is in itself a dangerous precedent that strongly suggests we have a judiciary that is influenced by public opinion. Just the idea that we have such a judiciary implies we have a democracy that is in tatters.

Click to expand...

If I were you, I wouldn't put so much faith is a judiciary system of a country with the highest crime rates and possibly the lowest conviction rates.
Admit it the whole system is in tatters and would hate to be convicted of anything by such a system

JungleBoy said:

If I were you, I wouldn't put so much faith is a judiciary system of a country with the highest crime rates and possibly the lowest conviction rates.
Admit it the whole system is in tatters and would hate to be convicted of anything by such a system

Click to expand...

The Judicary is doing its job. The criminal investigation system isn't

if zuma pleads guilty hell freezes over and the world ends

kingmonty said:

You see that's where Cosatu, the ANC and the SACP are wrong...

To even suggest, nay, hint that he can't have a fair trial because of media attention is in itself a dangerous precedent that strongly suggests we have a judiciary that is influenced by public opinion. Just the idea that we have such a judiciary implies we have a democracy that is in tatters.

Click to expand...

Yes, well back in the real world the judiciary is made up of human people.
To suggest that somehow being a judge makes one immune to bias, influence, predjudice and other such human failings is a bit naive. The judiciary is not and cannot be made up of super beings without the normal human failings the rest of us have. The only way would be if the judge had never heard of jacob zuma or the circumstances of his case before the trial. This is possible in other cases and judges often do avoid reading media about a trial they are involved in for this very reason.

The problem here is not only media attention, but the prolonged media attention over a period of 5 years+ Part of having a fair trial is the accused “have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay". While technically this is from the moment a charge is laid, in zuma's case he has been charged and now recharged because the prosecution wasn't ready the first time.

joelus said:

Yes, well back in the real world the judiciary is made up of human people.
To suggest that somehow being a judge makes one immune to bias, influence, predjudice and other such human failings is a bit naive. The judiciary is not and cannot be made up of super beings without the normal human failings the rest of us have. The only way would be if the judge had never heard of jacob zuma or the circumstances of his case before the trial. This is possible in other cases and judges often do avoid reading media about a trial they are involved in for this very reason.

The problem here is not only media attention, but the prolonged media attention over a period of 5 years+ Part of having a fair trial is the accused “have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay". While technically this is from the moment a charge is laid, in zuma's case he has been charged and now recharged because the prosecution wasn't ready the first time.

Click to expand...

Fortunately our constitution disagrees with you.

kingmonty said:

Fortunately our constitution disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

about what?

Section 35 (3) of the Constitution (FC) provides for the trial rights that are applicable in relation to an accused person as follows:

“(3) Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right –

(a) to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
(c) to a public trial before an ordinary court;
(d) to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay;
(e) to be present when being tried;
(f) to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
(g) to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
(h) to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings;
(i) to adduce and challenge evidence;
(j) not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
(k) to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
(l) not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted;
(m) not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted;
(n) to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing; and
(o) of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.”

kingmonty said:

The Judicary is doing its job. The criminal investigation system isn't

Click to expand...

...with judges that get drunk like skunks and crash onto people's houses...

I don't know what you people are on about. Zuma has committed NO crime. Being paid to get something done is not a crime! It's called having a job, or earning a salary.

Well let's see what happens on Friday.
We all know Zuma puts up a brave face outside court. In the courtroom, he smells a crapload of brown inside his pants....