Mila
Honorary Master
Sound so like sa - lost of talk.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
PRIVATE PROSECUTION JACOB ZUMA
- Thread starter DigitalSoldier
- Start date
Sound so like sa - lost of talk.
If this were to go ahead, would the NPA be forced to supply the applicant with the evidence they had on JZ? And would it be a civil matter or criminal, i.e would he go to jail?
It seems promising, they must publish a bank account if they need funds.
It seems promising, they must publish a bank account if they need funds.
hj2k_x
Honorary Master
It would still be criminal. Just a private person in the role of the (normally public) prosecutor.
I do not think the NPA would be compelled to supply anything to the new prosecution, though.
general_koffi
Expert Member
Legal and financial hurdles aside (I think they could be overcome quite easily), the biggest issue I see with this is that Zuma's supporters would basically lynch anyone who tried.
Aside from that, I dunno whether the NPA would be compelled to hand over evidence.
Aside from that, I dunno whether the NPA would be compelled to hand over evidence.
I would back that and what about a petition???
blunomore
Honorary Master
1. Can the bribes paid to Zuma paid be linked to tax money?
2. Are the person/s instituting the private prosecution, taxpayers?
If yes, a class action on behalf of taxpayers can be brought.
TonyHawk
Expert Member
What was good for Shaik... is good enough for the rest
If one can take a cop to court... one can take a politician to court.
I'll sponsor the case as well... as a lot of people... unlike the also corruptable stealing corporate world
Albereth
Honorary Master
Not really - when the state is acting it is more difficult (if not impossible) to bring another action for the same offence. What this does is request a statement from the state that they will not be bringing charges so that a private charge can be brought.
It clears the way.
Albereth
Honorary Master
That can all be subpoenaed.
And suitably doctored in the interim as well.
But I do like this move. I'd support if they need funds...
stix
Expert Member
http://www.thepeoplevsjacobzuma.co.za
Would be the way to go - i suspect people would make donations to a legal fee. Hire some ambulance chasers and off we go.
My idea - now you do it.
Would be the way to go - i suspect people would make donations to a legal fee. Hire some ambulance chasers and off we go.
My idea - now you do it.
Morgoth
Executive Member
won't JZ be eligible for double jeopardy if such a investigation goes to trail?
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
No, double jeopardy only applies when you have actually have sat trial.
Balstrome
Banned
People, forget it all and just remember to call your president, The Accused.
Mila
Honorary Master
The accused rapist showerhead
remybfg10k
Expert Member
Forget all that, the companies that lost out on the arms deal have real concrete evidence that they were directly affected by the bribes.
247 Legal Services
New Member
PRIVATE PROSECUTION - JACOB ZUMA & THE CLAN
Zuma - was keen to say he wanted his day in court, but he contracted a legal team to vigorously defend him - WHY IF HE IS INNOCENT?
SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ?
Reality is that Zuma and many cabinet ministers and others are implicated in the Arms Deal, to speculate perhaps even Trevor Manual? - he signs the cheques! So it's obvious that the "big boys" are trying to do damage control.
Why spend $75,000,000,0000 on arms? At what exchange rate / what was the Rand value - it cost the Taxpayer.
Who is our enemy - There is NO SWAPO, NO Frelimo or ANC - were are under siege by our own citizens – So do we need Frigates and submarines? We need safety and a legal system that is free of corruption and upholds our constitution.
So who benefited from the Arms deal - NOT the taxpayers, NOT even the Pensioners who built South Africa.
Our youth are learning by example-
Corruption is Cool,
The ministers bust in Travel Gate Scam - All they got was slap on the wrist – Cool
A Judge can drink and drive and abuse the legal system – that’s Cool
The Chief of Police is up for Corruption – that’s cool.. what else!
Are we another Zimbabwe in the making ?
Vote for any party but .... ANC .... but VOTE!
Zuma - was keen to say he wanted his day in court, but he contracted a legal team to vigorously defend him - WHY IF HE IS INNOCENT?
SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ?
Reality is that Zuma and many cabinet ministers and others are implicated in the Arms Deal, to speculate perhaps even Trevor Manual? - he signs the cheques! So it's obvious that the "big boys" are trying to do damage control.
Why spend $75,000,000,0000 on arms? At what exchange rate / what was the Rand value - it cost the Taxpayer.
Who is our enemy - There is NO SWAPO, NO Frelimo or ANC - were are under siege by our own citizens – So do we need Frigates and submarines? We need safety and a legal system that is free of corruption and upholds our constitution.
So who benefited from the Arms deal - NOT the taxpayers, NOT even the Pensioners who built South Africa.
Our youth are learning by example-
Corruption is Cool,
The ministers bust in Travel Gate Scam - All they got was slap on the wrist – Cool
A Judge can drink and drive and abuse the legal system – that’s Cool
The Chief of Police is up for Corruption – that’s cool.. what else!
Are we another Zimbabwe in the making ?
Vote for any party but .... ANC .... but VOTE!
Last edited:
Who would be so dumb so as to go to court against NPA without legal counsel.
Why do people pay Legal Wise, Legal and Tax every month when they have not commited any crimes or are not planning to commit crimes in the future.
What dumb ass question this is!!!
247 Legal Services
New Member
Dropping the charges against Zuma is irrational and unlawful
Zille: Dropping the charges against Zuma is irrational and unlawful
Helen Zille, Leader of the Democratic Alliance
6 April 2009
The reasons given by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for dropping the charges against Mr Jacob Zuma do not hold water. The DA is now finalising its plan to take the matter further through the legal system.
The decision to withdraw the charges does not appear to be rationally connected to the information before the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP). All indications are that the NDPP has not taken a decision based in law, but that it has buckled to political pressure. Two weeks before the election, it now portrays Jacob Zuma as a wronged victim in a show trial.
Firstly, the evidence presented by the NDPP today does not change the fact that there is a strong case against Zuma. That case must go to court. The evidence presented by the NDPP, which amounts to selective quotations from transcripts of bugged telephone conversations between the former head of the Scorpions, Leonard McCarthy, and the former head of the NPA, Bulelani Ngcuka, does not affect the substantive merits of the case against Zuma. It merely points to political manipulation in the timing of the NPA's decision to re-charge Zuma. By the NPA's own admission today, it does not detract from the case itself.
This evidence must be processed through the proper legal channels. It must be examined and cross-examined in court. If the individuals whose telephone calls were recorded are guilty of criminal conduct they must be charged too.
At the moment, we have the worst of all possible worlds, with selective prosecutions depending on who holds political office.
Secondly, the NPA has acknowledged that the prosecuting team working on Zuma's case believes that the prosecution should go ahead. That is telling. The NDPP himself was previously satisfied that a prima facie case existed against Zuma with a good prospect of success in court. In accordance with the NDPP's constitutional and statutory duties, we believe the only lawful decision in these circumstances is to proceed with Zuma's prosecution.
Whether or not individuals in the NPA colluded with powerful political figures in respect of the Zuma prosecution does not change the fact that Zuma has a case to answer. As Judge Louis Harms of the Supreme Court of Appeal noted: "a prosecution is not wrongful merely because it is brought for an improper purpose. It will only be wrongful if, in addition, reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting are absent, something not alleged by Mr Zuma and which, in any event, can only be determined once criminal proceedings have been concluded."
For all the above reasons, the DA believes the decision to drop the charges is irrational and unlawful. In the past week our legal team has been preparing the groundwork to take this matter further before the courts, should the need arise.
They are studying today's announcement closely. It is clear that the NPA is compromised in this matter. The only way that justice will prevail is if the decision to drop the charges is reviewed in open court.
Zille: Dropping the charges against Zuma is irrational and unlawful
Helen Zille, Leader of the Democratic Alliance
6 April 2009
The reasons given by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for dropping the charges against Mr Jacob Zuma do not hold water. The DA is now finalising its plan to take the matter further through the legal system.
The decision to withdraw the charges does not appear to be rationally connected to the information before the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP). All indications are that the NDPP has not taken a decision based in law, but that it has buckled to political pressure. Two weeks before the election, it now portrays Jacob Zuma as a wronged victim in a show trial.
Firstly, the evidence presented by the NDPP today does not change the fact that there is a strong case against Zuma. That case must go to court. The evidence presented by the NDPP, which amounts to selective quotations from transcripts of bugged telephone conversations between the former head of the Scorpions, Leonard McCarthy, and the former head of the NPA, Bulelani Ngcuka, does not affect the substantive merits of the case against Zuma. It merely points to political manipulation in the timing of the NPA's decision to re-charge Zuma. By the NPA's own admission today, it does not detract from the case itself.
This evidence must be processed through the proper legal channels. It must be examined and cross-examined in court. If the individuals whose telephone calls were recorded are guilty of criminal conduct they must be charged too.
At the moment, we have the worst of all possible worlds, with selective prosecutions depending on who holds political office.
Secondly, the NPA has acknowledged that the prosecuting team working on Zuma's case believes that the prosecution should go ahead. That is telling. The NDPP himself was previously satisfied that a prima facie case existed against Zuma with a good prospect of success in court. In accordance with the NDPP's constitutional and statutory duties, we believe the only lawful decision in these circumstances is to proceed with Zuma's prosecution.
Whether or not individuals in the NPA colluded with powerful political figures in respect of the Zuma prosecution does not change the fact that Zuma has a case to answer. As Judge Louis Harms of the Supreme Court of Appeal noted: "a prosecution is not wrongful merely because it is brought for an improper purpose. It will only be wrongful if, in addition, reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting are absent, something not alleged by Mr Zuma and which, in any event, can only be determined once criminal proceedings have been concluded."
For all the above reasons, the DA believes the decision to drop the charges is irrational and unlawful. In the past week our legal team has been preparing the groundwork to take this matter further before the courts, should the need arise.
They are studying today's announcement closely. It is clear that the NPA is compromised in this matter. The only way that justice will prevail is if the decision to drop the charges is reviewed in open court.