State capture inquiry begins

[Excalibur]

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.

How does he give a version of events and conversation he was not party to or present?

 

[3WA]

.

Counterpoint:

It is clear from this section that the Commission has a right to examine a witness to try and establish whether the witness is being truthful. While this regulation makes clear that both non-implicated and implicated witnesses can be examined, rule 3.2 is more ambiguous and it is not clear whether it applies to implicated witnesses as well as non-implicated witnesses. This section states that:3

“A member of the Commission’s Legal Team may put questions to a witness whose evidence is presented to the Commission by the Commission’s Legal Team including questions aimed at assisting the Commission in assessing the truthfulness of the evidenceof a witness. Subject to the directions of the Chairperson, the Commission’s Legal Team may ask leading questions.”

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opi...-is-fully-within-its-rights-to-question-zuma/

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

How does he give a version of events and conversation he was not party to or present?

well in a civilised world he stops lying about not being present, and then proceeds to give his version of events

this is not that world though, TIA

 

[TysonRoux]

How does he give a version of events and conversation he was not party to or present?

ROFL, at the very poor trolling attempt.

 

[Excalibur]

well in a civilised world he stops lying about not being present, and then proceeds to give his version of events

this is not that world though, TIA

Okay, so President Zuma was present when Gupta was talking to DG Maseko?

 

[Fulcrum29]

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.

/snip

Listen to what Daniel Mantsha is saying here. Zuma is a commission’s witness, that is true, and may be cross-exanimated, but they argued the leave. Mantsha is Zuma’s lawyer BTW. Do you know much about commissions (the act)?

Here you go, read the Commissions Act,

http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/docs_gen/1947_08_Commissions Act.pdf (PDF)

do note that it may exclude the technical amendments which were provisioned to support the Zondo Commission.

Then continue to read,

The Terms of Reference: https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/uploads/Terms_Of_Reference.pdf (PDF)
Rules of the Commission: https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/uploads/Rules_Of_the_Commission_41774.pdf (PDF)

and Commission Regulations,

Gazetted: https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/uploads/GOVERNMENT_GAZETTE_Vol_632.pdf (PDF)
Proclamation (technical ammendments): https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/uploads/PROCLAMATION_NO_8_OF_2018.pdf (PDF)

and return here once you understand the Zondo Commission.

 

[TysonRoux]

Okay, so President Zuma was present when Gupta was talking to DG Maseko?

WTF is it with the trolling!!!!

Zupta raped the nation, and the cnut is not the president.

 

[Excalibur]

WTF is it with the trolling!!!!

Zupta raped the nation, and the cnut is not the president.

It's not about what he did or how you feel about him, his title remains.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Okay, so President Zuma was present when Gupta was talking to DG Maseko?

That POS was likely present everywhere, and certainly well informed the entire time. Him saying anything to the contrary is just obvious lies.

 

[Splinter]

How does he give a version of events and conversation he was not party to or present?

The whole point is that he is accused of giving the orders that led to the events and conversations...

 

[3WA]

Okay, so President Zuma was present when Gupta was talking to DG Maseko?

I don't recall.

 

[Excalibur]

The whole point is that he is accused of giving the orders that led to the events and conversations...

And he did respond to say "i was not there" or "i didn't give the instruction", what more do you want from him?

 

[TysonRoux]

And he did respond to say "i was not there" or "i didn't give the instruction", what more do you want from him?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you believe the POS Zupta.

 

[ToxicBunny]

And he did respond to say "i was not there" or "i didn't give the instruction", what more do you want from him?

To stop being a tosshead, and stop lying about things....

We want him to spend the rest of his days in jail whilst we recover the billions he enabled to be stolen.

 

[Excalibur]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you believe the POS Zupta.

Do you have evidence contrary to what he's saying? Is there evidence to the contrary anywhere?

 

[ToxicBunny]

Do you have evidence contrary to what he's saying? Is there evidence to the contrary anywhere?

Lots... we're holding onto it for the moment... would rather use it in a court of law where it will ensure he rots behind bars.

 

[Splinter]

And he did respond to say "i was not there" or "i didn't give the instruction", what more do you want from him?

To be at the commission to carry on with these lies to other questions, so that he looks like an even bigger deceitful, dishonest and despicable twat.

 

[ForceFate]

Okay, so President Zuma was present when Gupta was talking to DG Maseko?

He issued the instruction according to Maseko.

 

[Splinter]

Do you have evidence contrary to what he's saying? Is there evidence to the contrary anywhere?

Yes - numerous people testifying. It's called witness testimony.

 

[Gordon_R]

Counterpoint:

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opi...-is-fully-within-its-rights-to-question-zuma/

There are a lot of different agendas playing out, and various reporters cover different aspects of this story.

In the Hogan case we have a highly credible witness who interacted directly with the president:
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...run-testimony-jurys-out-on-who-outfoxed-whom/

Zondo also reminded him that Hogan’s allegations were that he had interfered in the process, so it was important for the commission to understand how matters had unfolded — according to him.

Zuma didn’t budge.

“I hear you. But, my problem does not go away. For example, the allegation put forward by the minister is that I interfered. I don’t know what that means, because the president talks to the minister about what they do. So if there was an appointment to be made, they consult with the president. I don’t understand this very broad word (interfere).”

Justice Zondo tried again, providing a cushion that Pretorius may have to go through the gist of Hogan’s claims as opposed to line by line.

Zuma, realising that he was not going to win this round then said:

“Chair, I hear you but I am being cross-examined on the details and I don’t know what will be the outcome. If we’re looking at that particular allegation, if I go through all of this and the commission does not consider my answer?”

And that summed up what appears to have been a grave concern, one followed by a visible huddle by members of his legal team for a caucus session, and then it was up to Sikhakhane to rise and end the day’s proceedings.

In the Waterkloof case he was responsible for appointing the prime culprit as an ambassador: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...-testimony-the-devils-in-the-missing-details/

However, the case of Koloane is relatively simple. He said he was responsible for the Guptas landing a plane at the Waterkloof Air Force base. And after that fact, Zuma appointed him as an ambassador. The evidence from Koloane in this was so weak that it might make Zuma particularly vulnerable.

This would make questions being put to Zuma on this issue particularly important, partly because of their simple directness. Imagine the scene:

Paul Pretorius: “Why, Mr Zuma, did you appoint Mr Koloane an ambassador despite his wrongdoing in this case?”

JZ: “Because he had a good track record as a diplomat.”

PP: “Had any other diplomat in the service ever done such a thing, opened a military base to a foreign plane in this way?”

JZ: “No”.

PP: “And why did you make this appointment?”

It would be a moment that could reveal much about Zuma.