Crime is a reality, says Zuma

BobbyMac

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
3,353
Which still proves that there was no evidence to prove that there was a corrupt relationship, it is called exoneration
Erm, actually re-read my posts - you'll see I agreed. Assumptions are clearly a problem for you.
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Sorry Bageloo, but the judge nowhere made an announcement for the stay of prosecution. If there was, then Zuma cannot be charged for this again.
Oh my mistake. I should have said when he struck the case off the roll.
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Only on appeal - and only if granted the right to appeal by the court. Chances are pretty good that a permanent stay of prosecution will be granted - without such right to appeal being awarded. In any event, there was no stay of prosecution granted. The matter, for technical legal correctness' sake, was withdrawn by the prosecution.
The matter was not withdrawn by the prosecution. It was struck off the roll because their application for postponement was denied and they were not ready to resume with the trial.
 

BobbyMac

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
3,353
The matter was not withdrawn by the prosecution. It was struck off the roll because their application for postponement was denied and they were not ready to resume with the trial.
The prosecution always withdraws a case prior to it being struck off the roll. It's just a technicality and effectively just worded as such for the record. It is just done so that it is not seen as a 'judgement' as such. In principle you are, however, correct. ;)
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
The prosecution always withdraws a case prior to it being struck off the roll. It's just a technicality and effectively just worded as such for the record. It is just done so that it is not seen as a 'judgement' as such. In principle you are, however, correct. ;)
now the big question is whether they will ever be ready to resume ?

If they decide to resume at the time of the ANC elections wouldn't that be construed as being a conspiracy against his candidature?

The sad part is that we might never know the truth about this matter as it now more of a political matter than anything else.
 

BobbyMac

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
3,353
The prosecution can at any time bring fresh charges unless a permanent stay of prosecution is granted. Zuma and his defense team are pushing for that, and the longer the prosecution takes to bring those charges the greater the chance that such a motion will be granted. It is on the verge of becoming a Human Rights issue as well.
 

xtermin8or

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
1,815
now the big question is whether they will ever be ready to resume ?

If they decide to resume at the time of the ANC elections wouldn't that be construed as being a conspiracy against his candidature?

The sad part is that we might never know the truth about this matter as it now more of a political matter than anything else.
Two scenarios to keep JZ out of the Presidency

Scenario One :

JZ is innocent and this is a ploy by Mbeki to keep him out of the Presidency, then Mbeki will instruct the state to charge him just before the elections. Yes people will see it as that, but it is too easy to deny, the state just says they were busy trying to get their case properly together in an effort not to waste the time of the court or the accused. Since the matter will be before court, Mbeki will say it is not prudent to hold a commission of inquiry into the matter as there is a risk that it could jeopardise the outcome of the case. The new leader of the ANC is chosen and focus shifts from JZ to the new leader, and JZ is soon forgotten, until he is found innocent and disappears into retirement

Scenario Two :

JZ is guilty and so the President holds the recharging over him like a sword. JZ is threatened that if he tries to accept the nomination he will likely get, he will be charged, and the evidence will be used to prosecute him, and he will end up in jail, and they will put him in a prison in the Eastern Cape :D . JZ declines the nomination, saying that he feels he will be better utilised serving the ANC in another capacity. The new leader of the ANC is appointed and focus shifts from JZ to the new leader. JZ is deployed back to KZN, where he becomes the emmissary of the ANC to the KZN house of traditional leaders.

In both these scenarios, Mbeki wins :(
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
re 'crime is a reality, says Zuma'

Oh goodie. Next he needs to decide that gravity exists, acknowledge the
existence of the wheel, accept that female circumcision is criminal, and that the AID's virus can't just be showered away.
Then he might get to the comprehension of the average 10 year old.
 

BobbyMac

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
3,353
Scenario 3. Zuma succeeds in obtaining a permanent stay of prosecution and accepts his nomination as ANC president. T-Bone doesn't have a leg to stand on to oust Jacob Zuma as the ANC presidential candidate - it is up to the General Assembly to vote on whether he becomes the country's president.

In your first scenario, extermin8or, you worryingly suggest that T-Bone can "instruct" the state to charge Zuma :eek: If that is the case, then we have a bigger problem in this country than anyone can imagine.
 

xtermin8or

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
1,815
If you are naive enough to believe that Mbeki has no influence over the NPA, then I am really worried about you. It has been shown in court that there is Executive interference in many 'Independent' Government agencies

Case in point - Mbeki's involvement in ICASA (SATRA) 's awarding of cellphone licence to Cell C
 

BobbyMac

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
3,353
If you are naive enough to believe that Mbeki has no influence over the NPA, then I am really worried about you. It has been shown in court that there is Executive interference in many 'Independent' Government agencies

Case in point - Mbeki's involvement in ICASA (SATRA) 's awarding of cellphone licence to Cell C
Since when is having "influence" the same as possessing the power to "instruct" ????? If Mbeki can use his influence, fine - but instructing goes against the grain of an independent judicial system - and places the president above the law, which by definition is against the spirit of our constitution.
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Scenario 3. Zuma succeeds in obtaining a permanent stay of prosecution and accepts his nomination as ANC president. T-Bone doesn't have a leg to stand on to oust Jacob Zuma as the ANC presidential candidate - it is up to the General Assembly to vote on whether he becomes the country's president.
I must say this is the scenario that is more likely to play out.
1. Zuma and Tint will oppose prosecution's application to secure diary from Mauritius and it's likely to drag on forever until Zuma is elected
2. The prosecution's appeal on seized documents will drag on forever until zuma is elected.
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Since when is having "influence" the same as possessing the power to "instruct" ????? If Mbeki can use his influence, fine - but instructing goes against the grain of an independent judicial system - and places the president above the law, which by definition is against the spirit of our constitution.
There was a rumour that Zuma was charged soon after Mbeki and the head of the NPA went on an overseas trip together...makes you think...hey?
 

BobbyMac

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
3,353
@Bag: I'm also convinced (speculatively of course) that T-Bones involvement in the arms deal corruption is also a matter that will only see the light when he is no longer president of anything.
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
@Bag: I'm also convinced (speculatively of course) that T-Bones involvement in the arms deal corruption is also a matter that will only see the light when he is no longer president of anything.
A president who has a lot to hide is usually characterised by clinging to power even if his term has run out. Ditto Mugabe. Another way of ensuring the skeletons stay in the closet is of course picking a suitable successor who will fullfil the desires of the outgoing president
 

VernD

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,265
You are wrong, the prosecution will have to indroduce the prima facie evidence first. . .
Judge V D Merwe found that sex happened but was consexual. What technicalities do you speak of ? A not guilty verdict was passed and he was not acquitted on technicalities. You are just deliberately misleading other people so as to justify you own opinion.

In the meantime we can only discuss the merits of the case but not pass judgment as yet.

Firstly, I'd be very careful about calling people "wrong" unless I had the hard facts to disprove what they were saying.

As for the prima facie eveidence; it's there, but even that is a matter of contention because of how it was obtained; if you are as informed as you seem then you should know that.

And, for his acquittal on the rape case, yes there was sex and yes the judge ruled that it was consensual but was there any evidence introduced that said that the alleged victim explicity consented ? The motion that it was consensual was arrived at because it was deemed that the victim's actions implied consent. Yet, in contradiction to this, the victim's state after the act, as was testified by a phsycologist, was consistent of a person who was raped. So, AFAIC, the judge weighted the one against the other and decided to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Is that not a technicality ? It by no means refutes what happened.

Please explain the technicalities you refer to
Technicalities explained; read earlier posts.
 

Tanarri

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
770
No I don't think he is angel. I don't know where you got that idea from. I'm not a christian i.e. don't believe in angels.
What has happened eaxctly? I don't recall him being convicted of a crime. His corruption case was thrown out of court. Charges have not been reinstated yet, so we'll wait and see.
In another case he was acquitted of rape charges and that matter is pretty much settled.
Now you tell me what has happened that I missed.
Your opinion seems to that our justice system is flawless and that the true phrase used in conjunction with our system 'innocent until proven guilty' must be upheld even by the opinions of the people not affiliated by the law. If I am reading too much into your arguments then maybe you can state more clearly what you believe. That is if you want to, but here's my opinion:

Zuma is not in jail, which means that he was not found guilty on any severe charges that may have put him jail. The nature of two of the cases (corruption and rape) left much to be desired and I think there is a big probability that he may be guilty. I'm not a judge, so judging him in any case is pointless, but I have my opinion.

I don't know how you would rate your knowledge of the English language, but in the context where I used 'angel', I don't know where celestial beings fit into any of it. 'Angel' in the English language have more than one meaning, like many other words. I quote two definitions amongst six from Oxford: "1 a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant or messenger of God, conventionally represented as being of human form with wings. 2 a persion of great beauty, kindness or virtue"

Two guesses on which one it is after you read my post again. :rolleyes:
 

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Firstly, I'd be very careful about calling people "wrong" unless I had the hard facts to disprove what they were saying.

As for the prima facie eveidence; it's there, but even that is a matter of contention because of how it was obtained; if you are as informed as you seem then you should know that.
Not really we are yet to see that prima facie evidence. The prosecution is not ready to proceed. They are still to obtain diaries from Mauritius to be used in support of the allegations. They seized documents from Zuma and his lawyers years after they announced the existence of the prima facie evidence. Where is the prima facia evidence if they are still searching high and low for it.

And, for his acquittal on the rape case, yes there was sex and yes the judge ruled that it was consensual but was there any evidence introduced that said that the alleged victim explicity consented ? The motion that it was consensual was arrived at because it was deemed that the victim's actions implied consent. Yet, in contradiction to this, the victim's state after the act, as was testified by a phsycologist, was consistent of a person who was raped. So, AFAIC, the judge weighted the one against the other and decided to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Is that not a technicality ? It by no means refutes what happened.


Technicalities explained; read earlier posts.
You call this being acquited on technicalities ?
From the aforegoing it should be clear that I find that consensual sex took place between the complainant and the accused in the main bedroom.
The judge found that consensual sex took place. He did not give the accused the benefit of a doubt. That's why I said you were wrong right from the begining becasue I assumed you'd have been too redfaced to even read the judgment and I therefore assumed correctly that you did not read it.

The question can also be asked why would the complainant allege that she was raped by the accused when in fact it was consensual sex that took place ... ...It is in this respect that the reference to previous false rape allegations becomes of utmost importance. The case is in my jugdment an illustration of how pressure groups and individual should not jump to conclusions and express critisism before having heard all the evidence...
I'm sorry VernD I don't see any techncalities here. All I see is a woman who was found through cross examination to have lied and fooled all of us. I wish someone would falsely accuse you of rape and maybe you can also get off on technicalities? I wonder if you do ask every woman before you bonk them if they could kindly sign the consent form. Otherwise you are just as vulnerable to false rape allegations.
 
Last edited:

Bageloo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,800
Your opinion seems to that our justice system is flawless
I know there's room for error hence I don't support the death penalty. However if a judgment has been passed we have to respect it as it is final unless it is challenged through the legal systems. We are of course allowed to hold opinions to the contrary but at least we should come up with sound reasons why we think the judgment was flawed. It is not enough to just say "Ja he done it" when we don't have any thing to back that up with.
Therefore it is not laughable that I believe that a person is innocent until he is proven guilty.
 

RichardP

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
1,742
Originally Posted by Bageloo View Post
No I don't think he is angel. I don't know where you got that idea from. I'm not a christian i.e. don't believe in angels.
What has happened eaxctly? I don't recall him being convicted of a crime. His corruption case was thrown out of court. Charges have not been reinstated yet, so we'll wait and see.
In another case he was acquitted of rape charges and that matter is pretty much settled.
Now you tell me what has happened that I missed.
His case was not thrown out of court... it was struck from the role.

There is a difference. It was struck 'cos the prosecution didnt have their ducks in a row...... and I think the NPA wanted this to happen 'cos the Shaik case was still in progress.
If you remember, Shaik was trying to get out of Jail, and some of the documents that show Shaik wasnt a big fish were inadmissable at the time..... hence Shaik was fighting to get these documents Recognised by the courts ..... *BUT* back at the ranch, these documents implicate Zuma and Shaik fighting to get out of jail, has now made these documents Admissible as evidence against Zuma.

My 2c rambling
 
Top