So Zuma walks free

P

Plasticmonkey

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
683
Reaction score
0
Location
Pretoria
Pietermaritzburg - ANC president Jacob Zuma has won his bid to have the decision to prosecute him on corruption and other charges declared unlawful.

Judge Chris Nicholson handed down his judgment to a packed Pietermaritzburg High Court on Friday afternoon.

He said that while the application had nothing to do with Zuma's guilt or otherwise, it was a procedural matter.

Thousands of supporters broke into applause outside the court on the news of the verdict.

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2392407,00.html
 
Whichever way we feel about the verdict, the fact is there probably would have been a k@k storm if he was sentenced. I know it probably bastardises the justice system, but it's an unfortunate predicament we found ourselves in. If they do manage to nail him with something, I feel it would probably be safer to do so once he's president.
 
Last edited:
No chance they can get him now. It would take too long and by the time he is president it would be impossible.

Best to leave him be now and get his presidency over. Our nation is too stupid to avoid this.
 
Telkomisaloser said:
...Thousands of supporters ...

All brainwashed....
Click to expand...

Not brainwashed....They just there for the free shirt.:p

If I had A couple of Mil to start a political campaign I would just buy 50mil Shirts with my logo on, and give it to the masses. "vote for me, get a free shirt"
 
I'd love to get the details on exactly what "procedural issues" resulted in this case being thrown out.
 
Remember guys: this was not about guilt or innocence, it was procedural. I have obviously not read the verdict, but if it was clear to the judge that procedure was not followed by the State, he had no choice to rule like he did.

When Zuma supporters all protested for the charges to be dropped, we insisted that they should wait for the court to rule, i.e. they should respect the rule of law. Now that we have a ruling, surely we should ALSO respect the rule of law .... ??
 
blunomore said:
Remember guys: this was not about guilt or innocence, it was procedural. I have obviously not read the verdict, but if it was clear to the judge that procedure was not followed by the State, he had no choice to rule like he did.

When Zuma supporters all protested for the charges to be dropped, we insisted that they should wait for the court to rule, i.e. they should respect the rule of law. Now that we have a ruling, surely we should ALSO respect the rule of law .... ??
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued as to the procedural issues, especially considering the Scorpions' involvement, and whether they will use this against the Scorpions case. Seems the ANC might kill two birds with one stone...:mad:
 
BlueCollar said:
I'd love to get the details on exactly what "procedural issues" resulted in this case being thrown out.
Click to expand...
Judge Chris Nicholson handed down his judgment to a packed Pietermaritzburg High Court on Friday afternoon, saying that the decision was invalid, and the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions ought to have heard the applicant's representation.
Click to expand...
What the heck happened? Once again, procedure wasn't followed, resulting in yet another case being thrown out. This just happens to be a high-profile case, is all. Nothing different in the day to day running of the SA national justice system...

[disclaimer]I know that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people working hard within the system - but there are some that just don't care, and they mess it up for everyone else.[/disclaimer]
 
As much as I'm disappointed with the decision, I'm not going to be like Zuma and his cronies and undermine the Court's & law judgment.

If the NPA stuffed up & a court of law decides that they did, I'll respect that.
It irritates me that someone gets off on a technicality, and that I as a taxpayer, have to foot his legal bill.

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=6187
 
Last edited:
DJK said:
I'm intrigued as to the procedural issues, especially considering the Scorpions' involvement, and whether they will use this against the Scorpions case. Seems the ANC might kill two birds with one stone...:mad:
Click to expand...
Probably.

The judge drew exception with the fact that the NPA failed to try Zuma and Shaik at the same time, and that politics may very well have played a hand in the NPA's subsequent decision to prosecute Zuma. A just ruling. We should respect the ruling entirely. The NPA cocked up, and unfortunately it took the better part of a decade and a boat load of money for that cockup to be recognised by a judge.
 
kingmonty said:
Probably.

The judge drew exception with the fact that the NPA failed to try Zuma and Shaik at the same time, and that politics may very well have played a hand in the NPA's subsequent decision to prosecute Zuma. A just ruling. We should respect the ruling entirely. The NPA cocked up, and unfortunately it took the better part of a decade and a boat load of money for that cockup to be recognised by a judge.
Click to expand...

A judge should make his ruling based on facts, not speculation and opinion. Basing a ruling on speculation that politics might have played a role is just ludicrous, moreso if there is merit in the case. Where is the proof that politics was involved?

Secondly, it is not the judge's decision to decide on time-frames (if this were the case then major drug investigations should be brought to a halt as unjust as well). It is also not his place to rule based on how and who are prosecuted and what order they are. The NPA wanted him nailed and I am sure that if they could, they would have at the time. They might have needed the guilt verdict from the Shaik trial to strengthen their case against Zuma. And none of these are procedural issues as far as I can tell, but I am no lawyer, nor am I a judge.

This is all just my opinion, but it seems the judge has based his ruling on bullsh1t reasoning, that most of you are lapping it up like milk to a pu55y cat.
 
Ja, I have seen thread titles "walks free / declared innocent / charges dropped / etc"

That is not it at all. He can still be charged and prosecuted. This ruling simply says that there was a procedural fault with the manner in which he was charged before. It says nothing about his guilt or innocence. And the state still has the right to charge him once they fix up the mistake they made before. This is not over ppl. Read the news properly please... and report it properly as well.
 
Garyvdh said:
Ja, I have seen thread titles "walks free / declared innocent / charges dropped / etc"

That is not it at all. He can still be charged and prosecuted. This ruling simply says that there was a procedural fault with the manner in which he was charged before. It says nothing about his guilt or innocence. And the state still has the right to charge him once they fix up the mistake they made before. This is not over ppl. Read the news properly please... and report it properly as well.
Click to expand...

I came to the same conclusion.
 
DJK said:
A judge should make his ruling based on facts, not speculation and opinion. Basing a ruling on speculation that politics might have played a role is just ludicrous, moreso if there is merit in the case. Where is the proof that politics was involved?

Secondly, it is not the judge's decision to decide on time-frames (if this were the case then major drug investigations should be brought to a halt as unjust as well). It is also not his place to rule based on how and who are prosecuted and what order they are. The NPA wanted him nailed and I am sure that if they could, they would have at the time. They might have needed the guilt verdict from the Shaik trial to strengthen their case against Zuma. And none of these are procedural issues as far as I can tell, but I am no lawyer, nor am I a judge.

This is all just my opinion, but it seems the judge has based his ruling on bullsh1t reasoning, that most of you are lapping it up like milk to a pu55y cat.
Click to expand...
LOL. You're right, he was tasked with ruling on the legality of the charges brought against Zuma, and correctly ruled that the charges were brought against him illegally :)
 
kingmonty said:
LOL. You're right, he was tasked with ruling on the legality of the charges brought against Zuma, and correctly ruled that the charges were brought against him illegally :)
Click to expand...

A ruling he made, yes - a fair one, I am not sure of if those are the reasons he has based his ruling on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X