Mauritius refuses to help JZ

[blunomore]

Johannesburg - The Mauritian government has refused to assist African National Congress President Jacob Zuma in his case before its court, the SABC reported on Thursday.
Mauritian Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam told media that assisting Zuma would undermine the independence of the judiciary in his country.

Zuma has appealed to the Mauritian Supreme Court to stop South African authorities from obtaining documents held in Mauritius relating to his corruption case.

Ramgoolam said there had not yet been such a request but that he had explained the judicial system to Zuma.

He confirmed that he had met Zuma last month.

"We can't even assist him, even had he asked.

"He came to see me, to call on me when he was here in Mauritius to say, just to tell me... what he was doing, that he wanted to challenge in court and I explained to him that in Mauritius we have a very independent judiciary, that he has to go through the court system and the courts will decide, nothing more than that," Ramgoolam told the SABC.

Zuma's attempt to have search and seizure raids and a letter requesting documents from Mauritius ruled invalid was to enter a third day in the Constitutional Court, in Johannesburg, on Thursday.

http://www.24.com/news/?p=tsa&i=862999

 

[AutoX]

Zuma will try anything to stop being exposed for good.

 

[semiautomatix]

Saw this earlier. lol, do you think you can honestly influence the judiciary of another country, bra JZ?

What are you hiding? If you have nothing to hide then let it go to court.

 

[Ady]

All this IMO just makes JZ appear more guilty. Why try so hard to have things stopped if you have nothing to hide. We all know he is dirty now just give us a chance to prove it.

 

[medicnick83]

Mauritius FTW

 

[Surv0]

Good news indeed, what happens if hes found guilty? who would be next ANC president?

 

[Moederloos]

Cry me a ****ing river, jz

 

[sand_man]

All this IMO just makes JZ appear more guilty. Why try so hard to have things stopped if you have nothing to hide. We all know he is dirty now just give us a chance to prove it.

Indeed...

 

[Surv0]

its his privacy that he is hiding . Little private information should be known about a President.

What bollocks if ive ever heard any....
Or are you saying that because hes the party leader we should not know about the corruption allegations against him. We dont have to right to know about corruption concerning the man who might lead this country?

Your statement is absolute bs

 

[ToxicBunny]

Being the future president of this country, he no longer has any privacy... His life must be laid out to everyone so we can decide if he is an acceptable person to lead this country.

 

[Surv0]

exactly - no more secrets - if you are corrupt u will pay the price behind bars...\
good riddens

 

[Surv0]

Mrzingi you are confusing his private life with the part of his life that concerns this country...
Yes they are seperate... and these documents and seized documents regard this country and his part in a corruption conspiracy. All information must be uncovered if he is to be proved either innocent or guilty. His acts so far point in the direction of GUILTY!!!!

 

[TheShogun]

he has a right to privacy doesnt he , so he has to defend it with whatever he has .
The court will have the final judgement and I must say it all looks good for the future President , just a few things that have to be ironed out .

Pushing yourself into the public eye doesn't remove the right to privacy but it does mean that certain aspects of your life are no longer private.
One of those aspects is whether or not you've been honest in your business and political dealings.
If a person wants to run a country that person needs to be free from allegations and scandal if he wants to foster confidence from the international community and the voters in his or her country.
That International Confidence is essential if you want an economy to grow.

So in the end arguing "he's protecting his privacy" isn't valid because he wants to be president.
In fact any person involved in criminal activity should have their right to privacy revoked.

 

[semiautomatix]

Mr Zuma did not do something against the law to protect his private documents , which might contain issues on his private life amongst other things .

Er... yes he did.

 

[dlk001]

Er... yes he did.

What aspect of the law would you say Mr Zuma is breaking? If that's the case, surely that legality should prevail?

 

[semiautomatix]

What aspect of the law would you say Mr Zuma is breaking? If that's the case, surely that legality should prevail?

Considering his financial advisor is convicted of bribing him it definitely stands to reason.

Alledgedly Mr Zuma is going to be up for corruption charges based on the fact that he accepted a bribe. However, the state can hardly prove its case without evidence. So to claim that search and seizure, with a warrant, can not take place without a charge is ludicrous.

And yes, private documents might contain evidence that can be used in a court of law. Diaries get used all the time, do they not?

 

[Telkomisaloser]

Cry me a ****ing river, jz

and stop wasting our taxes

 

[Albereth]

Why is there an assumption that the president of the ANC will be the president of the country? The ANC can put whoever they want in that position (subject to some parliamentary laws)

 

[TheShogun]

Mr Zuma did not do something against the law to protect his private documents , which might contain issues on his private life amongst other things .

They're not really private documents if they've got to do with his business dealings.
If they were to do with his private life and in no way related to his business or political aspirations then there would be nothing wrong with him trying to keep them private.

The problem is, they don't. They're business documents and as such are subject to seizure according to the law.

 

[semiautomatix]

They're not really private documents if they've got to do with his business dealings.
If they were to do with his private life and in no way related to his business or political aspirations then there would be nothing wrong with him trying to keep them private.

The problem is, they don't. They're business documents and as such are subject to seizure according to the law.

That's true, if they indeed having no bearing on the case then they will be returned. Only the state attorneys will have a peek at them to determine which category they fall in.