State capture inquiry begins

[ponder]

It's still early to speculate on the outcome. They're probably waiting for the Commission to wrap up before they pounce, else it might throw things into disarray. I'll give the process benefit of the doubt until it concludes. New broom at NPA and all of that...

 

[ForceFate]

R50 bucks nothing will happen to JZ.

JZ has a lot working for him. He's got over half of the ANC on his side. He's got an ally in NDZ and DD...

 

[ForceFate]

I'm giving them benefit of the doubt and not drumming support for them. I'm allowing this to play out before I start pointing fingers. Yes, ANC government has history of non-delivery but I'm hoping Batohi will make changes that will be of benefit to the country in a long run.

 

[TelkomUseless]

As it has been said before, he has done well to use his juniors to do the dirty work for him. There is nothing anyone can do if Koloane swears that he facilitated that Gupta landing all on his own and for his own benefit, the least that can be done is to charge him.

Well if 10+ people say they interacted with him in his dealings... then yea. He might have been clever to use his juniors.. but if they all turn on him.

 

[The_Librarian]

And at the end we'll hear a


heh heh heh heh heh

 

[R13...]

It's still early to speculate on the outcome. They're probably waiting for the Commission to wrap up before they pounce, else it might throw things into disarray. I'll give the process benefit of the doubt until it concludes. New broom at NPA and all of that...

The new NPA anticorruption unit is supposed to start processing some of the evidence already.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Now listen properly ....

And at the end we'll hear a

heh heh heh heh heh

FTFY

 

[Sideshow Bob]

On a serious note, don't they kick off the day with meetings and such, to discuss the day ahead and close the day with similar...?

You are right actually. I am just venting. A while ago, I did some contractual work at the one of the govt offices (shock and horror) and while they do have limited public hours, there is some work involved before & after public opening hours.

 

[ponder]

I'm giving them benefit of the doubt and not drumming support for them. I'm allowing this to play out before I start pointing fingers. Yes, ANC government has history of non-delivery but I'm hoping Batohi will make changes that will be of benefit to the country in a long run.

Do you really believe the anc will allow all these members to be prosecuted?

This is all one big show so as to appear as if they're taking all this seriously. If they were genuinely serious people like that ambassador for example should have been recalled by now and fired due to his own lies and evidence, but they probably said no he's ok. Zuma is 77yrs old, by the time all these commissions are wrapped up, taken under review by the gov, prosecution started, delayed, appealed it will be 15-20yrs later still with no outcome or the zuma faction is back in power. Nobody is going to jail, well maybe just a few minor lackeys thrown under the bus.

 

[TheChamp]

Well if 10+ people say they interacted with him in his dealings... then yea. He might have been clever to use his juniors.. but if they all turn on him.

The least I am hoping for is that perhaps there was a slip up somewhere, the way his lawyers are panicking makes me hopeful.

 

[biometrics]

R50 bucks nothing will happen to JZ.

He learned well from the Shaik trial, he wasn't going to make that mistake again, so I doubt there is any hard evidence, he made sure of that. Unfortunately there is the Shaik trial that will be his downfall. We'll know in a few months if his application for a permanent stay is granted (which I doubt). If not he's going to jail.

 

[R13...]

He learned well from the Shaik trial, he wasn't going to make that mistake again, so I doubt there is any hard evidence, he made sure of that. Unfortunately there is the Shaik trial that will be his downfall. We'll know in a few months if his application for a permanent stay is granted (which I doubt). If not he's going to jail.

There's evidence but the people who can sink him are as deep in it as he is and won't be in any hurry to implicate him even if they themselves end up hauled before a court, tried and convicted. It was about how he recruited most of the lieutenant with obvious direction from the Guptas

 

[ForceFate]

Do you really believe the anc will allow all these members to be prosecuted?

This is all one big show so as to appear as if they're taking all this seriously. If they were genuinely serious people like that ambassador for example should have been recalled by now and fired due to his own lies and evidence, but they probably said no he's ok. Zuma is 77yrs old, by the time all these commissions are wrapped up, taken under review by the gov, prosecution started, delayed, appealed it will be 15-20yrs later still with no outcome or the zuma faction is back in power. Nobody is going to jail, well maybe just a few minor lackeys thrown under the bus.

Many variables involved. If they can down the person without implicating themselves, then it will happen. Issue with ANC is that many of the influential political heads are involved, one way or the other, in some form of corruption.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Many variables involved. If they can down the person without implicating themselves, then it will happen. Issue with ANC is that many of the influential political heads are involved, one way or the other, in some form of corruption.

It is possible with the technical amended Commissions Act back in March 2018,

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...ility-rules-in-state-capture-inquiry-20180323

"On the basis of legal advice, the president has amended regulation 8(2) to limit the inadmissibility of such evidence to circumstances where a witness may incriminate themselves," the Presidency said.

Regulation 8(2) previously stated: "No evidence regarding questions and answers contemplated in sub-regulation (1), and no evidence regarding any fact or information that comes to light in consequence of any such questions or answers, shall be admissible in any criminal proceedings, except in criminal proceedings where the person concerned is charged with an offence in terms of section 6 of the Commissions Act, 1947 (Act No. 8 of 1947), or regulation 12.

The change Ramaphosa ordered came after submissions received by the Presidency from the Helen Suzman Foundation and AfriForum, which suggested that the regulation may undermine efforts to prosecute anybody implicated in criminal activity in the commission which is headed by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.

Regulation 8(2) now reads:

"A self-incriminating answer or a statement given by a witness before the commission shall not be admissible as evidence against that person in any criminal proceedings brought against that person instituted in any court, except in criminal proceedings where the person concerned is charged with an offence in terms of section 6 of the Commissions Act, 1947 (Act No. 8 of 1947)."

Section 6 of the Commissions Act states that any witness who does not testify as agreed, or finish testifying, or produce any document or book or information required, is liable to a fine.

Zuma’s legal team is bringing doubt into the process. Though Zuma seems to have memory loss, it is their strategy and approach. They may implicate more people who may implicate them back in return so they will need to play their cards right. Zuma, strictly speaking, already implicated Ramaphosa, but it is up to the Commission to call on him as a witness. Zuma’s legal team is disputing this,

https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/uploads/Rules_Of_the_Commission_41774.pdf

3.3 If the Commission’s Legal Team intends to present to the Commission a witness, whose evidence implicates or may implicate another person, it must, through the Secretary of the Commission, notify that person (“implicated person”) in writing within a reasonable time before the witness gives evidence:

3.3.6. that, if he or she wishes:

3.3.6.3. to cross-examine the witness; he or she must, within two weeks from the date of notice, apply in writing to the Commission for leave to do so; and

Also, they saw a technicality, and they knew on which questions by the commission to draw on this technicality. Zuma’s lawyer is talking balls though, he has been implicated and there is no way they can ignore that.

3.3.1. that he or she is, or may be, implicated by the witness’s evidence;

3.3.2. in what way he or she is, or may be, implicated and furnish him or her with the witness’s statement or relevant portions of the statement;

3.3.3. of the date when and the venue where the witness will give the evidence;

3.3.4. that he or she may attend the hearing at which the witness gives evidence;

3.3.5. that he or she may be assisted by a legal representative when the witness gives evidence;

All which was above board.

They knew this going into the testimony as a witness. All planned in advance. The commission does, however, have the right to cross-examine the witness in accordance with the rules, but they claim that Zuma didn’t have it in writing to take that leave to do so. Yes, technicality. The rule may be updated by the current President, but it may also alienate witnesses in doing so.

Zuma’s legal team is banking on,

3.5. If an implicated person believes that the Commission’s Legal Team did not give him or her the notice referred to in Rule 3.3 within a reasonable time before the witness could or was to give evidence and that this may be prejudicial to him or her, he or she may apply to the Commission for such order as will ensure that he or she is not seriously prejudiced.

As per my suspicion, as previously said in this thread, Zuma’s legal team is likely to be recommended an independent enquiry, unless the commission asks the President to secure Zuma’s attendance. Two options, a third option is allowing Zuma to walk away.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Zuma and co. are going at lengths to try and bring the commission into disrepute,

 

[Excalibur]

Stop cross-examining the man, it's unlawful in commissions of inquiry. This is not a witch hunt, otherwise he will stop attending altogether.

 

[R13...]

Stop cross-examining the man, it's unlawful in commissions of inquiry. This is not a witch hunt, otherwise he will stop attending altogether.

How are must they ask questions of this lying sack? If he refuses they can just supboena him and have him answer. They're not cross examining him, they're just asking clarifying questions. And oh, implicated people are allowed to cross examine people who implicate them at this commission. It is just that the Zulu chief is electing to believe he isn't implicated when he's clearly the lynch pin in all the mess he left us.

 

[TysonRoux]

Stop cross-examining the man, it's unlawful in commissions of inquiry. This is not a witch hunt, otherwise he will stop attending altogether.

Which clause or law was broken?

The Zupta POS isn't going to cooperate regardless.

 

[Excalibur]

How are must they ask questions of this lying sack? If he refuses they can just supboena him and have him answer. They're not cross examining him, they're just asking clarifying questions. And oh, implicated people are allowed to cross examine people who implicate them at this commission. It is just that the Zulu chief is electing to believe he isn't implicated when he's clearly the lynch pin in all the mess he left us.

You clearly don't know much about commissions, they are not courts of law. They were not supposed to cross-examine President Zuma, and based on Zondo's conclusion yesterday he's very amenable to Adv Skhakhane's argument.

 

[R13...]

You clearly don't know much about commissions, they are not courts of law. They were not supposed to cross-examine President Zuma, and based on Zondo's conclusion yesterday he's very amenable to Adv Skhakhane's argument.

View attachment 685495

Zuma has repeatedly refused to give his version of events. So the only way they could get anything out of him was by asking questions.

As if you know anymore than me about commissions of inquiry. The commission's job is to establish certain facts or not. That means they must sometimes ask questions.