Zuma Says His Rights Disregarded

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,279
Rustenburg - Opposition parties claimed to respect the rule of law, but are quick to oppose it when someone exercises his constitutional rights, ANC president Jacob Zuma said on Sunday.

At a party rally at Olympia Park Stadium in Rustenburg, Zuma said opposition parties went to the National Prosecuting Authority to make submissions to prosecute him instead of focusing on their election campaigns.

"For certain organs of the state to review such submissions is within the law, within the constitution," SABC news reported him as saying.

"What do they [opposition parties] do? They even challenge the decisions before the decisions are taken and in the middle of elections. Instead of them being busy canvassing they are busy going to court to challenge decision that don't exist."

Zuma was referring to the DA's submission to the NPA on Thursday.

The DA gave their reasons as to why they believed the NPA must prosecute Zuma.

In their submission the DA said the NPA had enough evidence, including 13 documents from Mauritius to prosecute Zuma.

Defectors welcomed back

At Sunday's North West rally, Zuma also called on ANC members not to disrupt meetings of other political parties because this would give opposition parties something to speak about in the media.

He said those who had left the ANC were welcome to come back.

"Some of them who had political education have realised that the ANC is their home and are coming back and we welcome them," he said.

He was referring to a number of people who had returned to the ANC after joining the Congress of the People led by former ANC national chairperson Mosiuoa Lekota.

Source: News24

Personally, I think a party will do more to bolster its image by fighting for justice and the law than by campaigning.

Regardless, what is it when one person's rights infringe on those of another? *shrug*
 

Balstrome

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
10,690
Did he accept money from Shaik ? Yes, guilty, No, Innocent, all the rest is BS. And all the rest of it was mainly put in play by Zuma himself.
 

Pilgrim

Wugger
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,097
This must be what he is whining about:

Open letter to Adv Mokotedi Mpshe

OPEN LETTER TO THE ACTING NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Dear Advocate Mpshe

Re: Representations in respect of the prosecution of Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Attached please find representations from the Democratic Alliance in respect of the prosecution of Mr Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma.

Our representations set out clearly and compellingly why the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) must prosecute Zuma and why it should not drop the case that it has carefully built over the last five years.

Firstly, the NPA has a constitutional duty to exercise its functions without fear, favour or prejudice. It must uphold the rule of law and the principle that all are equal before the law. It is the absolute duty of the NPA to be the staunchest defender of the rule of law. The NPA was created to fight a culture of impunity and to deter corruption. If the principle of equality before the law is discarded, we can no longer be called a constitutional democracy, even if (on paper) our Constitution is among the best in the world.

The NPA has already indicated, on affidavit and in court, that it has a solid case against Jacob Zuma, supported by a meticulously documented archive of evidence, and a reasonable chance of success in court. What is more, Schabir Shaik has already been convicted of bribing Zuma. Subsequent to Shaik's conviction, the NPA's body of evidence was significantly strengthened after the NPA gained access to 13 key documents held by the Mauritian authorities.

Secondly, if the NPA fails to pursue its case against Zuma, it will fail to execute its prosecutorial duty, and it will fail the criminal justice system itself. As the Pietermaritzburg High Court has noted, "A prosecutor has a duty to prosecute if there is a prima facie case and if there is no compelling reason for a refusal to prosecute". Such a case clearly existed a few weeks ago. What has happened since then to make it go away?

What has happened is that Jacob Zuma has submitted a secret document to the NPA. If this document makes such a compelling argument for the case to be withdrawn, we need to know what it is. Why has this argument only emerged now? Why should it not be part of Zuma's defence in open court? If these questions remain unanswered a cloud of suspicion will hang over the NPA and its credibility will be irretrievably compromised. In the public mind it will have succumbed to political pressure.

Thirdly, the NPA has a responsibility to press ahead with the prosecution since it is uniquely equipped and experienced to deal with criminal prosecutions. If the NPA discontinues a prosecution, there is no realistic prospect of the accused person appearing in court. Society must then stand helplessly by while a person accused of serious crimes is not called to account for his or her deeds.

Fourthly, dropping the charges against Zuma would create a precedent that individuals in positions of power are above the law and can bully their way out of trouble. It is the powerful who have the resources and the influence to pressurise the criminal justice system into granting them effective immunity. Zuma has had access to state funds to finance a legal defence unavailable to ordinary people. It is in such cases, involving the powerful, that the rule of law must be most fiercely defended by institutions such as the NPA. Withdrawing the charges would undermine public faith in the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and encourage members of the government to abuse their powers, secure in the expectation of immunity from prosecution.

Finally, unless the NPA brings accused persons like Zuma to trial, the presumption of innocence is meaningless. The presumption of innocence exists purely to safeguard accused persons until they are tried. Dropping the charges will not amount to an acquittal, leaving a cloud of suspicion over Zuma. Only the institutions of the criminal justice system can give both the accused and society the certainty that comes with knowing that an accused has been comprehensively tried, judged, and acquitted or convicted as the law demands.

It is profoundly regrettable that the NPA has refused to disclose the content of Zuma's representations so that we could address his points in our own submission. But the fact remains that nothing in Zuma's representations could possibly reduce the mountain of evidence amassed by the NPA. The NPA has a duty to act on the basis of that evidence.

Zuma's representations are reportedly modelled on what his legal team refers to as the "Samson Option": that is, if Zuma is to be "brought down", others must be brought down with him - notably, former President Thabo Mbeki, and other senior colleagues, by linking them to the arms deal or by inferring political motives behind Zuma's prosecution.

If this is indeed the basis of Zuma's representations, then the DA believes this actually aggravates the case against him. He is asking for a cover-up because the evidence in open court could bring down the government. The prospect that the NPA could be complicit in such a cover-up would mean the end of the rule of law in South

Africa. This is the conclusion that many will draw if the charges against Jacob Zuma are withdrawn in these circumstances.

If any other present or previous incumbent in any office of the state acted unlawfully in the circumstances surrounding the investigation of Jacob Zuma, let them be charged too. Their alleged wrongdoings, however, cannot be used as an excuse to nullify the 16 charges against Zuma for corruption, bribery, money laundering and racketeering. As Judge Louis Harms of the Supreme Court of Appeal noted, in overturning the Pietermaritzburg High Court's 2008 verdict on Zuma's prosecution: "A prosecution is not wrongful merely because it is brought for an improper purpose. It will only be wrongful if, in addition, reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting are absent".

The context in which current developments are occurring also creates a clear impression of a sequence of events designed to shield Jacob Zuma from the law. These events include the disbanding of the Scorpions (despite overwhelming public support for their retention), the firing of the NPA head Vusi Pikoli (although he was found to be fit to fulfil his office by the Ginwala Commission) and the release of Schabir Shaik (against the legal requirements for medical parole). All these developments have undermined the Constitution and turned its instruments into an extension of the Zuma clique in the ANC.

The DA believes that the attached representations set out a clear and irrefutable argument why the NPA should pursue its case against Jacob Zuma. If, for whatever reason, the NPA drops the charges, the public will have a right to know on what basis the charges were withdrawn. It is an established principle in law that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

If such an explanation is not forthcoming, the public will be entitled to conclude that the NPA and Zuma entered into a mutually beneficial deal in exchange for the charges being withdrawn. This would be a disaster for South Africa. It would give free rein to the powerful to engage in corruption, and encourage a context of generalised lawlessness.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

Helen Zille
Leader of the Democratic Alliance
 

Blaze786

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
1,984
Send him up the river I say. Or better yet China has just the mode of transport for scum like this. Can you say "Death Van"
 

semiautomatix

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,914
"A prosecution is not wrongful merely because it is brought for an improper purpose. It will only be wrongful if, in addition, reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting are absent".

If the only reason for dropping charges is that there was interference from the executive then that really isn't grounds.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
104,178
what about the rights of the 40 million South Africans which are being disregarded?

isn't it our right to have a president who is not corrupt?
isn't it our right to not have our tax money misspent?
isn't it our right to see the rule of law respected?
isn't it our right to have everything in the open instead of behind the scenes clandestine meetings?
isn't it our right to live in a stable and peaceful country?

what is he doing about those rights?
 

Peder

Hobbit
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
9,359
So what zuma is saying is just because you make a whole bunch of promises you are worthy to be the ruling party?

I would rather vote for someone who is actually doing something that campaigning...

And i think the ANC is getting quite scared at this election... i just see ANC everywhere... it used to be that all the posters were the same amount now there is ANC posters everywhere even on cars...
 

Balstrome

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
10,690
what about the rights of the 40 million South Africans which are being disregarded?

isn't it our right to have a president who is not corrupt?
isn't it our right to not have our tax money misspent?
isn't it our right to see the rule of law respected?
isn't it our right to have everything in the open instead of behind the scenes clandestine meetings?
isn't it our right to live in a stable and peaceful country?

what is he doing about those rights?

Actually Garydh, those are NOT rights as per our constitution, but I agree/understand with the sentiment.
 

Balstrome

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
10,690
So what zuma is saying is just because you make a whole bunch of promises you are worthy to be the ruling party?

No, what he is actually doing, is creating in his adoring followers minds, the impression that these representations that Zille has made, are illegal and should not be allowed. So now you have the sheeple, all baying the same call to have Zille's perfectly legal request denied, because they have been told by their God and saviour, Lord Zuma, that it is illegal.

This is the kind of work that drug pushers and pimps do to convince desperate people to buy into their schemes.
 

Pilgrim

Wugger
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,097
No, what he is actually doing, is creating in his adoring followers minds, the impression that these representations that Zille has made, are illegal and should not be allowed. So now you have the sheeple, all baying the same call to have Zille's perfectly legal request denied, because they have been told by their God and saviour, Lord Zuma, that it is illegal.

This is the kind of work that drug pushers and pimps do to convince desperate people to buy into their schemes.

ROFLMAO at the Zuma = drug lord/pimp...
 

MC88

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
25
what about the rights of the 40 million South Africans which are being disregarded?

isn't it our right to have a president who is not corrupt?
isn't it our right to not have our tax money misspent?
isn't it our right to see the rule of law respected?
isn't it our right to have everything in the open instead of behind the scenes clandestine meetings?
isn't it our right to live in a stable and peaceful country?

what is he doing about those rights?

I agree ........... seems like nowadays if you've been in jail or you raped somebody then you get a chance to stand for president !! That's a buncha bulls@#t !! :mad:
 

diesel

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
2,695
The sad truth is he is right, Opposition should rather be out there campaigning and winning votes than focusing on tarnishing a bob a jaan 's image.
 

semiautomatix

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,914
The sad truth is he is right, Opposition should rather be out there campaigning and winning votes than focusing on tarnishing a bob a jaan 's image.

So they shouldn't be opposing the election of a corrupt official? What is the job of the opposition then? I would think the clue is in the title...
 
Top