Mauritius refuses to help JZ

mrzingi said:
what if there is a need that some of these documents stay confidential . he has every right like anyone else to fight for privacy . although he has lost this round .
The court will take its course and by the looks of things this is not an open and close case like some people would want to put it . Mr Zuma survived the rape row but it did a lot of damage to his privacy and I dont think he would like that . Mr Zuma as of now is an innocent man finnish and klar
Click to expand...

Firstly, what do you mean "as of now"?
Being cleared of Rape charges has nothing to do with his corruption trial.

Secondly, if those documents pertain to the corruption case then there is absolutely no reason why they can possibly "need" to stay confidential.

Evidence in any court case cannot be ignored because it infringes on the persons privacy.
Search Warrants exist so that information pertaining to a court case can legally be acquired.
Those documents aren't being released to the public and it's most likely we'll never know the extent of the information they contain.

If he's innocent then the state prosecutor's and the judge will most likely be the only people to actually see the contents of those documents.

Take Zuma out of the equation. If it were any person accused of commiting a crime of that magnitude would you still argue that he has the right to deny the State evidence?
 
mrzingi said:
what if there is a need that some of these documents stay confidential . he has every right like anyone else to fight for privacy . although he has lost this round .
The court will take its course and by the looks of things this is not an open and close case like some people would want to put it . Mr Zuma survived the rape row but it did a lot of damage to his privacy and I dont think he would like that . Mr Zuma as of now is an innocent man finnish and klar
Click to expand...

These documents are not for public consumption. As I have said, should the Public Prosecutor feel they have no bearing on the case they will be returned. But whether private or not, if the have any connection to the case they will be revealed in a court of law. As such, should your "Mr Zuma" have nothing to hide all documents will be returned without any breach of his rights.

Again, innocene is presumed, however where there exist extenuating circumstances a judge of a court of the land is able to issue a warrant for the search and seizure of any documents that might pertain to the particular case in question. Should little to no evidence be found these documents are returned and the case dismissed. As such, being found guilty is not a prerequisite to having your private documents seized.
 
mrzingi said:
he has a right to privacy in a high profile case .
Click to expand...

It's been said before. The Right to privacy is not the Right to withhold Evidence in a judicial hearing.

Stop parroting "he has the right to privacy" unless you're prepared to back it up with some kind of logical statement.
 
blunomore said:
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
Click to expand...

i'm moving to mauritius.
kidding :D:D
 
mrzingi said:
i said it before that he is trying to protect himself and surely I would do the same in such a case .
Mr Zuma at the moment is a free man who has not been found guilty of any fraudulent activity just like you or me and therefore has freedom to whatever he feels are his rights .
Click to expand...

It's been explained to you by several people in this Topic. Private Documents that are considered Evidence in a Court Case are not private and he has no right to deny the court access to them.
If they were obtained legally with a search warrant then within the boundaries set by the law they cannot be considered private information that it is within his rights to withhold.

He's appealed twice now and been turned down. Both the legal judiciary and the constitutional court have ruled against him.

It's no longer a question of "his right to maintain his privacy" as those documents can no longer be considered his exclusive private property.
 
timgaul said:
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?
Click to expand...

I tend to side with your statements too as far as my perception of Zuma.

I was just curious as to how is Zuma breaking the law by exercising his legal defense? Surely, the law will prevail.
 
mrzingi said:
i said it before that he is trying to protect himself and surely I would do the same in such a case .
Mr Zuma at the moment is a free man who has not been found guilty of any fraudulent activity just like you or me and therefore has freedom to whatever he feels are his rights .
Click to expand...

That statement is stupid. He is at the moment a free man, just as any other criminal until sufficient evidence prooves he is guilty. By your reasoning, everyone will walk free, because everyone is a free man until evidence collected prooves otherwise, but you are saying that they are not allowed to collect the evidence until he is a convicted crimial?

Look at your logic : I am a guy who did some bad things. I murdered someone, but have not been convicted yet. The corpse is lying in my back yard smelling up the place, a lot of my neighbours suspect that I comitted a crime. Using your logic, the police cannot come over and investigate/remove the decaying corpse because I am a "free man"/not yet been found guilty, and they will be invading my privacy if they raided my home.

Come to think of it...your statement is EXTREMELY stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X