I never found a “generally corrupt relationship” between Zuma and Shaik

[Angelo]

I never found a “generally corrupt relationship” between Zuma and Shaik: Squires

HILARY Squires, the retired high court judge who sentenced Schabir Shaik to 15 years in prison for corruption, says he never found a “generally corrupt relationship” between the controversial businessman and former Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) attributed the phrase to Squires in its judgment upholding Shaik’s corruption and fraud convictions this week. The confusion suggests strongly that the five SCA judges who listened to Shaik’s appeal bid may not have read Squires’s original judgment convicting Shaik, and may have relied only on news reports which generally but wrongly attribute the phrase to Squires.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/weekender.aspx?ID=BD4A315740

 

[Nick333]

What an utter **** up.

It will be a great injustice if Zuma's innocence or guilt is for ever a matter of personal oppinion.

Why did Squires wait this long to speak up?

 

[reech]

.... and this is all based on another (possibly inaccurate) news report.

 

[AntiThesis]

Whoops...

 

[kilps]

"While the bungle does nothing to help Shaik, who is already in prison, it may hold immense implications for Zuma. The ANC deputy president’s legal team is considering a Constitutional Court challenge to any future attempt to re-indict Zuma, on the grounds that it is not possible to get a fair trial. The issues likely to arise in such a trial have been so openly canvassed in public that no new trial judge could be immune from general public perceptions, they believe. The SCA’s mistake might strengthen this view."

Careless...

 

[kingmonty]

One step closer to El Presidente Zuma.

 

[kilo39]

I could have sworn I heard those words come out of Squires mouth. Whichever it has to be agreed it is a weak statement, "a generally corrupt relationship." So which is it? Is it corrupt or is it not (generally covers a lot of ground.)

I must say that right from the start and up to Shaik going to jail I find this whole issue of white judges (and the white judiciary) problematical. These are the same people that 'upheld the law' and put Mandela in prison. I concur with the assessment of this government that our judges are clean but any questioning of this case raises a quagmire.

What is it with Squires being retired anyway?

It seems Zuma will be our next prez; the monolithic powers of the anc are beginning to move that way.

 

[Freshy-ZN]

I do swear I heard those words come out of Squires mouth. I was listening to the judgement on Radio2000. He definately said a "generally corrupt relationship existed between Shaik and Zuma"

Someone get the transcript quick before it is doctored (if it hasnt been already)

 

[bwana]

So only now he's picking up on it even though it was one of the most widely publicised quotations of the year?

I'm thinking its a good thing he's retired.

 

[Debbie]

Well said Bwana.

 

[Syndyre]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Shaik_trial/0,,2-7-1708_1718857,00.html

This is supposed to be a full transcript, haven't got time to read it in its entirety now but searching for a few keywords didn't come up with anything relating to the "generally corrupt relationship". If its not true how did it get widely reported for so long without being challenged?

 

[Debbie]

Good question.

 

[Telkomisaloser]

HILARY Squires couldn't find a tree in a forest

 

[supersunbird]

This is like Erloser... errr I mean Erwin, that took so long to deny he ever mentioned sabotage, only to have 702 play the clip where he clearly talks about sabotage...

 

[TonyA]

If you read the judgement, Judge Squires did not specifically say corrupt relationship, but when you read the judgement it is clear their was the giving of benefits which is illegal ito of the Corruption Act so it is probably fair to paraphrase and say generally corrup relationship. Aren't we just splitting hairs here?

 

[surface]

If you read the judgement, Judge Squires did not specifically say corrupt relationship, but when you read the judgement it is clear their was the giving of benefits which is illegal ito of the Corruption Act so it is probably fair to paraphrase and say generally corrup relationship. Aren't we just splitting hairs here?

I agree, this is just splitting hairs.

<b>Count 1</b> clearly states that <b>Shaik, or one or other of his accused companies, gratuitously made some 238 separate payments of money, either directly to or for the benefit of Mr Jacob Zuma</b>, who held high political office throughout this period. "

And Squires judgement is "Accepting then the evidence of these witnesses as the truth of the matters they described, makes the case on <b>Count 1</b> not just convincing in total, it is really overwhelming. "

 

[Syndyre]

If you read the judgement, Judge Squires did not specifically say corrupt relationship, but when you read the judgement it is clear their was the giving of benefits which is illegal ito of the Corruption Act so it is probably fair to paraphrase and say generally corrup relationship. Aren't we just splitting hairs here?

It may be splitting hairs but the question remains why all the major news services, including international ones such as the BBC, used the phrase as if it was a direct quote from the judgement. What was the source of this and why was it propagated so widely without any journalistic due diligence being applied to check if it was actually true?

 

[TonyA]

There facts are substantially correct and in essence that is what Judge Squires found even if he did not use those exact words

 

[Alan]

It may be splitting hairs but the question remains why all the major news services, including international ones such as the BBC, used the phrase as if it was a direct quote from the judgement. What was the source of this and why was it propagated so widely without any journalistic due diligence being applied to check if it was actually true?

Well the "mass media" rightly or wrongly do not not favour Mr Zuma and so will bend and twist facts or sometimes even outright lie to coax people to their point of view. It's nothing new. They are just as bad as those they proclaim to be protecting us from.

 

[Syndyre]

True, and as Goebbels said, "A lie, if repeated often enough, becomes the truth" which seems to be the case here. Just interesting that they all managed to come up with exactly the same lie. Was Googling it earlier and got an indication it may have been a statement by the prosecutor in the case rather than the judge, nothing conclusive though.