It was mentioned earlier that the fear is that if a "white" party comes into power, that they will remove everything that makes us democratic? How about the current plans to place the head of state above the law, in order to prevent Zuma from being prosecuted (assuming the ANC remains in power)? That scares me more than anything else - that one person is threatening the entire constitution for his own gain - and I will do what I can to prevent it.
I hope my contribution would also be seen as an addition to some lively debate. I never liked Jacob Zuma - I just didn't like him. When I heard that he was the ANC's choice for the next president, I was sort-of horrified.
Then the whole saga of arms-deal came about and I saw a lot of seemingly innocuous mistakes being made. Firstly, a commission was not given enough mandate to investigate everything about the arms-deal. Then the judge concerned tried to force his commission to operate outside the terms of reference, urged on by the usual cheerleaders in the DA and ID. 2 mistakes here: 1.Why was it that the commission was not given enough mandate to investigate the arms-deal saga fully? 2. Why did a judge try to operate outside of his mandate? Why did he try to disregard the law?
Mbeki was clearly not happy and he steadfastly refused to appoint a special commission to investigate the arms-deal. I could understand that he was a bit unhappy at attempts to pre-empt him, but I though he should have had better control of his ego and allowed the probe to go ahead. He didn't and that was mistake number 3. Still seemingly innocuous.
Small mistake number 4. One day the then Director of Public Prosecutions tells the media that there is a prima facie case of corruption against Zuma, but they won't prosecute, because the chances of winning it are slim. Seems like a reasonable thing to do, instead of wasting tax-payers money. However, this is devastating to Zuma's public perception. Then Zuma cried out and complained that he was being found guilty through trial by the media. Of course he was right. He also demanded to have his day in court to clear his name. Fine.
Then, Shabir Shaik was convicted of fraud and corruption. The media reported that the judge had said there was a generally corrupt relationship between Mr Shaik and Mr Zuma. The judge issued a statement refuting those reports, but the media ignored him and continued to imply that he had said there was a generally corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma. This, of course, meant that Zuma was also corrupt. How convenient!
Small mistake number 5. Mbeki, taking me by surprise at his rashness, which was at odds with his personality, fires Zuma - from the government and from his post as deputy-president of the ANC. Do you fire someone without a hearing? Regarding the ANC post, since when does an elected official get fired without due process? The ANC reversed the sacking from the ANC post and re-instated Zuma. The question is - Doesn't Mbeki understand anything at all about procedure? Or is Zuma exempted from those annoying considerations?
Small mistake number 6. So, the NPA and the Scorpions charge Zuma, to give him what he craved for : His Day in Court. In so doing, they raid his house and offices and confiscate countless documents. Zuma immediately runs to the courts to see if his rights are not being trampled upon. The courts agree that the raids were illegal and that some of the documents could not be used as evidence in court. Now, you have the NPA and the Scorpions breaking the law - The law breaking the law! But that is a small mistake, we all make mistakes, don't we? Right.
Small mistake number 7. The case is heard and evidence is heard. The NPA is using the illegally obtained documents as evidence, against a clear order by the court not to do so, making one judge absolutely mad in the process. The case is of course dismissed and Zuma is free to go. The question is: Why did the NPA defy a court order and try to use illegal evidence? Why is this Agency breaking the law with such impunity. Or is this another forgivable mistake? Or Are they deliberately undermining the law to not only prosecute Zuma, but to persecute him? If I was Zuma, I would think there was a conspiracy to undermine my rights too.
By this time, a Zuma-hater like me is beginning to wonder what really is going on here. By this time I am beginning to see a man who has been found guilty and crucified, without any proof of guilt. And I start feeling for him. Of course I look at the facts and only the facts.
Before the dust has settled on this one, a woman out of nowhere, complains that Zuma has raped her. Zuma repeatedly tells people that he respects the court and he will comply with the court's ruling. It turns out that the woman has already falsely accused 4 other people of rape. Meanwhile, in an answer to a question by the prosecution (the question was: What did you do after sex with the woman (I am paraphrasing)) Zuma answered that he took a shower. The media reports that he said he took the shower to minimise the chances of contracting AIDS. He is roundly derided for this. The question is - Who does not take a shower after sex? Anyway Zuma is acquitted - the woman's story was very unconvincing to the court. From this case we are meant to believe that Zuma is now a rapist. Didn't the court find him innocent? Who is placing himself above the law? Zuma or his detractors?
So, the NPA decides that they are going to recharge him. They recharge him, but they do not let him make any submissions. It seems like this is odd - he should be allowed to make some submissions, according to his lawyers. The NPA says - No, Making submissions is a privilege, not a right. So Zuma applies to the Durban High Court to block the case from going forward. The judge agrees and is at pains to explain that Zuma is being persecuted and has been persecuted for a very long time by the NPA, urged on by conspirators at high places. He therefore throws the case out. Newspaper reports gleefully that Zuma is raping the law and is putting himself above the law. And yet, it was the court - the law, that said that Zuma's case should not be allowed to go ahead. Amazing!
The NPA takes the case to the supreme court of appeals. Zuma again tells people that he will respect the court's ruling. The judge there nixes the previous judge's ruling in one of the most scathing attacks by a judge on another. So, the NPA can go ahead with their case. But, and it is a big BUT, Zuma is free to lodge an appeal with the constitutional court if he so wishes. So Zuma lodges an appeal with the Constitutional Court. Again people start crying murder. Zuma is placing himself above the law, the constitution and our democracy is in danger! Really?
In all of this, it is clear that Zuma has been a model citizen, respecting the law all the way and yet people say he is placing himself above the law. The only way to explain this obsession that Zuma is guilty of something is to conclude that he has been tried and found guilty by the media and the public, without any fair trial. There is no court yet that has found him guilty, so why are people so convinced that he is anti-law and anti-constituion?
It is very ironic, but Zuma's character has been raped and is continually being raped, by the very people who falsely accuse him of being a rapist. It is sad to see, but this is what rape does to a person. People take what you thought was yours by force, your dignity, and you are left there to suffer. So, the real rapists are Zuma's accusers.
