And, no doubt, equally loud the screams of innocent until found guilty.
An honorable thought, except when conditions of litigation are so skewed so as to make it impossible to be found guilty. When those carrying out the treasonable theft and other offences are in a position so as to decide how parliament should vote, what evidence should be presented in trials, and whether the guilty findings of a court, including the very highest in the land, will be ignored with contempt, then the only verdict one can come to is that the accused are guilty as charged, whether a trial takes place or not.
There are more than 783 reasons supporting this view.
Whether one liar called another liar a liar is really immaterial, this could have very serious consequences for Zuma in regard to the discrediting of the Seriti commission of enquiry, and the re-instatement of the original 783 charges and the spy-tapes case due to be heard later this year if I recall correctly.
I would love to be an optimist and hope that the flack (and there is a fair amount of it at the moment) coming Zuma's way will finally penetrate his teflon, and he will either be voted out on the no confidence motion / impeached, or recalled by the ANC.
I cannot predict that this will in fact happen, and give Zuma his due, he might not be well educated, but he is wiley as hell. But a few things are clear in my mind; first if we have to limp along to 2019 with Zuma as president, we will be economically borked, and it will take years to recover from that. Second, if his ex wife becomes president of the ANC, and becomes our president in 2019 (should the ANC win the elections with her at the helm) we will be borked twice over.
I would really like to support the notion that we offer him a deal to go, with a permanent stay of prosecution, but I just can't. It would be a compromise too far. For me, this has to play out, because in our country everyone needs to be equal before the law. I know they're not, but that is the way it needs to be.