Was judge Nicholson on the take?

[TELESPHORE]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2452027,00.html

Bloemfontein - A decision would soon be taken as to when the corruption and fraud case against ANC President Jacob Zuma will be put back on the court roll, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said on Monday.

Speaking in Bloemfontein, NPA spokesperson Tlali Tlali said the two parties would discuss a possible court date soon, but in the meantime Zuma remained charged.

"The parties would have to meet soon to look for a court date to bring the main criminal case on the roll again," he said.

Zuma faces charges of racketeering and money laundering, two of corruption, and 12 charges of fraud related to the multi-billion rand arms deal.

He was charged in 2005, but the case was struck from the roll in 2006. He was then recharged in December 2007.

A Pietermaritzburg High Court set aside the decision to prosecute him in 2008, but the Supreme Court of Appeal on Monday upheld an appeal on the matter by the National Director for Public Prosecutions (NDPP).

Plea bargain

Tlali said the effect of the SCA's decision was that Zuma "remains charged" and there was no indication of a plea bargain.

The NPA was pleased about the "correctness" of its approach being endorsed by the SCA.

"We are indeed very pleased," he said.

The two companies originally charged along with Zuma -- the South African subsidiaries of French arms manufacturing giant Thales International --would also be recharged.

Thint Holdings (Southern Africa) Pty Ltd and Thint (Pty) Ltd each faced one count of racketeering, two of corruption and one of money-laundering.

They were accused of paying Zuma a bribe in return for protection from probes into alleged irregularities in the arms deal.

The charges against them were provisionally withdrawn in 2008 in anticipation of the appeal in Bloemfontein.

- SAPA

 

[Sackboy]

Listening to the Zuma judgement, I cannot help but wonder if he was on the take. I remember thinking how peculiar it was for the Zuma supporters to have built a stage and booked artists to perform at a victory rally outside the courts when Nicholson gave judgement. It was as if they knew something nobody else did.

Wooah, this is dangerous water to tread on!

You could say the same about the ones who made today's verdict. If you don't agree with a ruling it doesn't mean the judge is corrupt.

 

[JungleBoy]

Wooah, this is dangerous water to tread on!

You could say the same about the ones who made today's verdict. If you don't agree with a ruling it doesn't mean the judge is corrupt.

I said earlier that Zuma willl not win in Bloem but he will not lose in KZN.
All the judges minght at this point be basically on the take.

 

[antowan]

I doubt he was on the take. Perhaps he was thinking more about his future in a Jacob Zuma presidency

That effectively means he is corrupt.

 

[arni1954]

Wooah, this is dangerous water to tread on!

You could say the same about the ones who made today's verdict. If you don't agree with a ruling it doesn't mean the judge is corrupt.

This is far more tricky ,since he made a ruling voluntarily on subjects which he was not asked to rule. There is something very very questionable in this case.
I do believe that he was on the take some way or anther . Alternatively totally lost his mind .

 

[general_koffi]

Second point ... based on what I've read - they can take it to ConCourt - but they'll just be wasting their time.

That seems to be Zuma's entire strategy... Just keep wasting time until he's Supreme Grand Pubah of Azania. Then he can make graft legal by himself.

 

[Syndyre]

That is a very serious question you are asking. I don't even want to call it an allegation.

Once a judge's objectivity and credibility are removed, he is nothing.

True but the SCA judgement already effectively removed his credibility.

That seems to be Zuma's entire strategy... Just keep wasting time until he's Supreme Grand Pubah of Azania. Then he can make graft legal by himself.

Seems like it.

 

[Xarog]

True but the SCA judgement already effectively removed his credibility.

No, it merely criticised and overturned his judgement.

 

[Syndyre]

No, it merely criticised and overturned his judgement.

In the process of doing that they implied he'd let his own politics cloud his judgement and that he'd decided on matters beyond what was before the court etc. You don't think that harms his credibility at all?

 

[Slaine73]

I still think he was on the take, I mean come on.

 

[Xarog]

In the process of doing that they implied he'd let his own politics cloud his judgement and that he'd decided on matters beyond what was before the court etc. You don't think that harms his credibility at all?

I think that the appeals process is there for a reason, and if you're asking any judge for perfection then you're barking mad.

Yes, he did make mistakes and they are quite obvious on appeal, but a single bad judgement doesn't mean that he is unfit for the job.

 

[marine1]

No but giving an unethical and wrong judgement does. He was wrong and one wonders how he was allowed to do it, he could have caused civil unrest in this country. Maybe thats what he was trying to do.

 

[gpe]

Like Mayor Zille said on the ETV 24hr news channel the other night "Let Jacob Zuma stand up and face the 700 charges against him" ...

Every judge will have his interpretation but its pretty obvious there's a lot of baggage to overlook.

 

[marine1]

Funny how he keeps claiming justice delayed......but yet he is the one delaying the process. What is Zuma scared of?

 

[Syndyre]

What is Zuma scared of?

Justice?

 

[Sackboy]

This is far more tricky ,since he made a ruling voluntarily on subjects which he was not asked to rule. There is something very very questionable in this case.
I do believe that he was on the take some way or anther . Alternatively totally lost his mind .

So this is just a hunch then, no evidence to support your claim? If you LIKED Zuma, I wonder if you would feel the same way?

 

[Sackboy]

Funny how he keeps claiming justice delayed......but yet he is the one delaying the process. What is Zuma scared of?

I don't think he's always to blame for delays. One just has to look at how long things take to happen in the whole system. He's probably following his lawyer's advice and following all avenues.

I mean if someone with limited finances and a busy job is suing you, for example, perhaps you would also want a speedy case, but you would also be extremely aware that you may win by bleeding your opposition dry (costs & time).

 

[ToxicBunny]

In the case of Zuma, he is the one delaying the process.. even after he said let him have his day in court to prove his innocence.

 

[marine1]

I don't think he's always to blame for delays. One just has to look at how long things take to happen in the whole system. He's probably following his lawyer's advice and following all avenues.

I mean if someone with limited finances and a busy job is suing you, for example, perhaps you would also want a speedy case, but you would also be extremely aware that you may win by bleeding your opposition dry (costs & time).

Yes but the state has more money than Zuma does. Zuma has been trying to drag it on until he is a sitting president and then no one can touch him. Once he becomes president, no charges can brought on him and he cannot be prosecuted while in office.

 

[Sackboy]

Yes but the state has more money than Zuma does. Zuma has been trying to drag it on until he is a sitting president and then no one can touch him. Once he becomes president, no charges can brought on him and he cannot be prosecuted while in office.

Is that true. In any case we've seen a President recalled (Mbeki) which has the same effect, surely.