Was judge Nicholson on the take?

[Sackboy]

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.

How is he delaying things?

 

[marine1]

How is he delaying things?

Are you kidding? If he has nothing to hide go to court already and prove your innocence. Problem is he is guilty and had tried every trick in the legal book to delay the trial and thus have the case struck off the roll.

 

[Sackboy]

Are you kidding? If he has nothing to hide go to court already and prove your innocence. Problem is he is guilty and had tried every trick in the legal book to delay the trial and thus have the case struck off the roll.

He may well be guiulty, however his case has been so politicised, I doubt whether he would ever get a fair trial. In the US, I'm convinced by now it would never have gone further. Mbeki has put his oar in for a start, and is he 'clean', I doubt it.

 

[Ghazi]

Last I heard we the tax payers are funding Jacob Zuma's efforts to circumvent the justice system. The costs to suppress the evidence in Mauritius must be extremely high, and speaks volumes. Innocent people want all evidence heard in the hopes that it will clear them.

Why would an innocent man have to go to such lengths to ensure that evidence cannot be heard?

http://barrym.blat.co.za/2008/02/21/jacob-zumas-attempt-to-suppress-the-evidence-against-him/

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

yeah, only the truly guilty stall as much as Zuma has ...... time to call a crook a crook and be done with it.

 

[Sackboy]

Last I heard we the tax payers are funding Jacob Zuma's efforts to circumvent the justice system. The costs to suppress the evidence in Mauritius must be extremely high, and speaks volumes. Innocent people want all evidence heard in the hopes that it will clear them.

The same funding rule applies to other politicians. We wouldn't want Zuma to complain that he can't defend himself for lack of funds, now would we?