State capture inquiry begins

I personally feel Adv. Pretorius was very nicely walking Zuma into a trap, where his don't knows and I can't remembers can't work. Hogan's testimony was that, you have a President who doesn't read memos and can't remember overriding an appointment? Sikhakhane picked that up, hence the song and dance!
 
In this room, I am the only person who ultimately must make decisions... I and I alone must make those decisions. I believe that as far as is practicable, I must hear all sides. And it is in that context that I made a decision, that I'd like to hear the former president's side of the story."
Click to expand...

Taking this at literal value, it means that Zuma digged a nice and deep hole for himself.

heh heh heh heh heh
 
Gordon_R said:
Zuma is used to being asked questions by ANN7. He is not used to actually have to answer anything that deviates from his script...
Click to expand...

Just like the old State of the Nation addresses. Wait for the fights to finish and then read from the script. Not even a single ad lib about the fact that he just witnessed a royal rumble. And a total disregard for understanding and engaging with parliamentary questions.

He was once exposed as not knowing the points on his nine-point plan.
 
Sikhakhane is saying Zuma has full respect for the commission as well as DCJ Zondo, Zuma says the commission is just another one of the tactics that has been employed since 1990 to nail him, what a contradiction.
 
Dslartibarfast said:
I personally feel Adv. Pretorius was very nicely walking Zuma into a trap, where his don't knows and I can't remembers can't work. Hogan's testimony was that, you have a President who doesn't read memos and can't remember overriding an appointment? Sikhakhane picked that up, hence the song and dance!
Click to expand...

The point (so far) is that Zuma has zero credibility as a witness (whether he can't remember, or just says no comment). Therefore on balance of probability, the judge must accept the preponderance of evidence of the previous witnesses as being credible, and move on to the next steps (whatever they may be).
 
Gordon_R said:
The point (so far) is that Zuma has zero credibility as a witness (whether he can't remember, or just says no comment). Therefore on balance of probability, the judge must accept the preponderance of evidence of the previous witnesses as being credible, and move on to the next steps (whatever they may be).
Click to expand...

The questioning was still all above aboard, and Jesse Duarte once said,

Media also puts out stories about corruption, unfairly, so I’ve tried to understand how dots are connected, I don’t see the logic, but as far as I’m concerned I am waiting for the Zondo Commission to call me. I have written to them.
Click to expand...

the Zuma legal team knows how the dots are connected but is dismissing the 'logic',

In regard to the questioning,

https://citizen.co.za/news/south-af...of-zuma-at-commission-perfectly-legal-expert/

Pretorius’ grilling of Zuma at commission perfectly legal – expert
Click to expand...
The line of questioning was ‘perfectly within the law’ and in fact, Zuma could get into trouble if he walks out or refuses to answer questions.

There was nothing improper or illegal about Commission of Inquiry into State Capture evidence leader Paul Pretorius being tough in questioning Jacob Zuma about his knowledge of malfeasance and graft that took place during his tenure as head of state, according to a public law expert.

Commenting on objections lodged this week to Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo by Zuma and his legal team about “being cross-examined” instead of “being led” – something that resulted in a heated debate and the hearings being adjourned on Wednesday afternoon until today – University of Cape Town lecturer Dr Phindile Ntliziywana yesterday said the line of questioning was “perfectly within the law”.

Zondo adjourned the hearings after persistent objections by Zuma and his legal team, who were unhappy about Pretorius’ line of questioning. The adjournment was to allow for a meeting of the two legal teams to thrash out differences in the application of the law on quizzing witnesses appearing before the commission.

While South African ambassador to the Netherlands Bruce Koloane and Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula have been among several witnesses to feel the heat during questioning at the commission, Zuma is the first to complain about the intensity of the grilling – describing it as “unfair”.

Ntliziywana, who has closely followed proceedings at the commission, said: “Leading evidence means you give a witness an opportunity to provide evidence and your role is to guide the witness.

“Your way of questioning is leading the witness. In this instance, you will have met with the witness beforehand and know more or less what evidence they will provide.

“In this instance, we are referring to those witnesses that are not implicated. For those who are implicated, like Mr Zuma, it is possible they could be probed in a cross-examination manner, to verify the veracity of the evidence that implicates them – perfectly within the law.”

Responding to threats by Zuma’s instructing attorney, Dan Mantsha, who warned that failure by Pretorius to tone down the line of questioning could lead to Zuma abandoning his testimony at the commission, Ntliziywana said the Commissions Act could see Zuma facing even worse trouble.

Ntliziywana said grounds for a fine/imprisonment could arise if any person:
  • Summoned to attend and give evidence, or produce any book, document or object before a commission, failed doing so without sufficient cause:
  • Failed to attend commission proceedings at the time and place specified in the summons;
  • Failed to remain in attendance until the conclusion of the inquiry, or until he is excused by the commission chairperson;
  • Refused to be sworn or to make affirmation as a witness after being required by the commission chairperson to do so; or
  • Failed to answer fully and satisfactorily any question lawfully put to him or her.
Zuma, the master of delay

From requesting Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo for a moment to wash his hands, asking for documents with a bigger font, complaining about suffering from flu and constantly clearing his throat before answering questions – Jacob Zuma’s ability to delay seemingly knows no bounds.

Previous attempts at delaying legal proceedings in the past have included:
  • Missing his own deadline on whether charges of corruption against him should be reinstated or not. Zuma’s lawyers were supposed to file a review of former National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shaun Abrahams’ decision to pursue the corruption case against Zuma;
  • Launched a bid for leave to appeal paying the estimated R10 million personal costs of a court order granted against him;
  • Several delaying tactics to avoid implementing the public protector’s State of Capture remedial action;
  • Multiple challenges to review the National Prosecuting Authority’s decision to prosecute him; and
  • Lodging an application to review the decision immediately after the Hawks had served him and co-accused, French arms company Thint, with a summons to appear at the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban on April 6.
Click to expand...
 
Zuma is still going to get away with it.

He is using the Public Protector as his own commission and prosecution against Ramaphosa so he has leverage against Ramaphosa and the two can make an agreement that Zuma won't be prosecuted.

Zuma has dirt on everyone. He controls so many state organisations with loyalists, information gatherers, the corrupt, non skilled and money loving.

You should never make the head of intelligence of a political movement become president. That is like making a person president for life. It's like a narco lord who built his network and pays off everyone with gov contracts, favors or cash so has dirt on everyone or knows someone he can push for a favor so no one is safe from his influence even judges,police, prosecution, doctors, lawyers. Instead of killing people who are moral he just fires people and replaces them with people who are not competent and he can control with dirt. No way those go against Zuma as they were never competent to start with. Zuma wil make their corruption be known if they go against them or don't do what they are told.

It is not a coincidence his friend Shabir got off even after being convicted or no one questioned a BS doctors report.

Why was Zuma laughing in parliament while they were chanting Zupta, Zupta, Zupta and having motion of no confidence week after week? Behind the scenes he was moving all his pawns in place so he controls everything.

His final move before leaving the presidency. Free education so that hot apple is thrown to those who come after and so the youth will always support him and when they can't get jobs after uni he still has support as they will blame the current government.

Every single decision he made even the ones that seem noble was to benefit himself as head of intelligence and control. Even his laughing and dumb act is just a diversion tactic to make himself seem down to earth and relatable to the masses and make any opposition underestimate him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X