DreamKing
Honorary Master
nothing will happen ......
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Zuma tapes a 'secret'
- Thread starter grok
- Start date
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
What power does the court have in this case, if the NPA doesn't play along? Not like it's a damages claim where you can take their stuff.
yebocan
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 15,371
- Reaction score
- 6,363
- Location
- Now North..behind the BW Curtain...
Or some Nixon editing would have taken place...
Dlamaqhinga
Expert Member
There are no Spy Tapes, they never existed from the beginning it was just a way of dropping charges
Albereth
Honorary Master
The head of the NPA gets arrested is what happens.
Maverick Jester
The Special One
FTFY.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
Perhaps that's why Zuumbie doesn't want to appoint someone.
That would suck, though. Get appointed and arrested a week later.
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
Yep.
DreamKing
Honorary Master
who is the head of NPA now?
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
DA Wins Zuma Spy Tape Bid
The High Court in Pretoria on Friday ordered acting national director of public prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba to lodge a copy of the Zuma spy tapes with the registrar of the court within the next five days.
The ruling by Judge Rami Mathopo followed an application by the Democratic Alliance. The party wanted to overturn a 2009 decision by the then acting National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Mokotedi Mpshe to withdraw fraud and corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in March last year ordered the NPA to lodge the record with the registrar of the high court, but the NPA refused to do so on the basis that it contained confidential representations by Zuma.
Mathopo ordered Jiba to comply with the SCA order and ruled that the record to be lodged include a copy and transcript of the electronic recordings Mpshe referred to in his announcement to withdraw charges against Zuma.
The record must also include any internal memoranda, reports or minutes of meetings dealing with the contents of the recordings or the transcript itself, insofar as these documents did not breach the confidentiality of Zuma's written or oral representations.
With regard to the memoranda, minutes, and notes of meetings, Jiba was ordered to deliver copies to the DA's Cape Town attorney within the next five days. Those parts of the document she considered confidential had to be marked.
The DA's attorney was ordered not to disclose to any other party, including to the DA, any part of the document which Jiba said was confidential.
Should the DA dispute any claim to confidentiality and should the parties be unable to resolve the dispute, the DA could apply to a judge for a ruling on the issue.
The NPA and Zuma were ordered to pay the costs of the DA's application.
Source : Sapa /str/dm/hdw/th
Date : 16 Aug 2013 12:03
The High Court in Pretoria on Friday ordered acting national director of public prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba to lodge a copy of the Zuma spy tapes with the registrar of the court within the next five days.
The ruling by Judge Rami Mathopo followed an application by the Democratic Alliance. The party wanted to overturn a 2009 decision by the then acting National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Mokotedi Mpshe to withdraw fraud and corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in March last year ordered the NPA to lodge the record with the registrar of the high court, but the NPA refused to do so on the basis that it contained confidential representations by Zuma.
Mathopo ordered Jiba to comply with the SCA order and ruled that the record to be lodged include a copy and transcript of the electronic recordings Mpshe referred to in his announcement to withdraw charges against Zuma.
The record must also include any internal memoranda, reports or minutes of meetings dealing with the contents of the recordings or the transcript itself, insofar as these documents did not breach the confidentiality of Zuma's written or oral representations.
With regard to the memoranda, minutes, and notes of meetings, Jiba was ordered to deliver copies to the DA's Cape Town attorney within the next five days. Those parts of the document she considered confidential had to be marked.
The DA's attorney was ordered not to disclose to any other party, including to the DA, any part of the document which Jiba said was confidential.
Should the DA dispute any claim to confidentiality and should the parties be unable to resolve the dispute, the DA could apply to a judge for a ruling on the issue.
The NPA and Zuma were ordered to pay the costs of the DA's application.
Source : Sapa /str/dm/hdw/th
Date : 16 Aug 2013 12:03
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
Nomgcobo Jiba, but she's only the acting head. Zuma promised to appoint a permanent one before the end of August.
blunomore
Honorary Master
The story was confusing as far as I can remember:
The NPA alleged that Zuma's lawyer and special adviser
rolleyes Michael Hulley had the full transcripts of the recordings.
Are they therefore implying that they (NPA) has neither the original recordings, Nor a copy of the full transcript? Where is it?????
The NPA alleged that Zuma's lawyer and special adviser
rolleyes Michael Hulley had the full transcripts of the recordings. Are they therefore implying that they (NPA) has neither the original recordings, Nor a copy of the full transcript? Where is it?????
SirFooK'nG
Executive Member
What I understand is that if they dont exist then the original cases are valid and could not be dismissed by the NPA. If they do exist, it contains a pandoras box of worms...
grok
Honorary Master
Zuma & the ANC making a mockery of the justice system, subverting the very democracy they struggled for all those years.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Zuma 'Opportunistic' says Judge
The so-called Zuma spy tapes were already in the public domain and it was "opportunistic" for President Jacob Zuma to now contend there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure, a High Court judge said on Friday.
Judge Rami Mathopo ordered Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba to hand over recordings and transcripts of conversations referred to by former Acting NPA head Mokatedi Mpshe when he formally withdrew fraud and corruption charges against Zuma in 2009.
The recordings, obtained by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), formed the basis for the decision not to prosecute Zuma.
The ruling in the High Court in Pretoria follows an application by the Democratic Alliance (DA), who wants to take Mpshe's decision on review.
Jiba was also ordered to hand over internal memoranda, reports or minutes of meetings dealing with the contents of the recordings - insofar as these documents did not serve to breach the confidentiality of Zuma's written or oral representations to the NPA.
Jiba was ordered to clearly mark which portions of the documents she regarded as confidential and the DA would have the right to approach a Judge for a ruling if there was any dispute.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in March last year also ordered the NPA to hand over the tapes and documents but Jiba refused on the basis that the SCA order did not require the NPA to produce records that were protected by confidentiality.
Zuma was of the view that the recordings and oral or written representations were protected by confidentiality.
In court, the NPA said it had "no view" about the transcripts or recordings and abided by the court's decision - a stance the judge described as "irresponsible".
The DA contended the NIA had handed transcripts of the recordings to the NPA, Mpshe had already disclosed a substantial portion of it to justify his decision and they were therefore not confidential.
Zuma did not submit any evidence to gainsay the allegations, preferring to rely on a bare denial.
Mathopo said it should have been obvious to Zuma that more was required to clarify his position instead of seeking refuge in a point of law.
"The objective facts submitted by the applicant cried out for an answer, yet the third respondent (Zuma) elected not to respond.
"(Zuma) imperilled his position in the circumstances by failing to put up any cogent explanation as to why he is entitled to the confidentiality.
"... It is opportunistic for (Zuma) to now contend that there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure."
The judge said it was "desirable" that the transcripts be produced to test whether Mpshe's decision was based on rational grounds.
"The remaining parts of the transcripts will complete a picture and give true meaning to that decision."
He said he agreed with the DA that confidentiality did not exist on the transcripts.
"I fail to understand (Zuma's) assertion that disclosure of the transcripts would affect his right to confidentiality or privilege.
"It has not been contended by any of the parties that Mpshe referred to anything more than a discussion by certain officials of the NPA on the question whether the charges should be brought before the African National Congress (ANC) Polokwane Conference or not.
"The excerpts of the transcripts which formed part of the record and which Mpshe extensively referred to in his address specifically related to the timing of the charges.
"In the light of this, I fail to see how the discussion on the timing of the charges would impact on the integrity of the charges."
It was illogical to allow Jiba to be the final arbiter.
"The first respondent (NDPP) is not an impartial stakeholder. It was a party to the SCA order. (It) has no right to independently edit the record. It must produce everything.
"The submission (by Zuma) that the transcripts are inextricable and formed part and parcel of the entire representation is rejected."
The judge also rejected arguments that producing the transcripts would infringe on Zuma's right to a fair trial.
"No cogent or plausible evidence has been advanced to show that producing the transcripts would adversely or materially affect his rights.
"The NDPP... has a duty to explain to the citizenry why and how Mpshe arrived at the decision to quash the criminal charges against the third respondent (Zuma)," said Mathopo.
Source : Sapa /str/fg/ks
Date : 16 Aug 2013 18:30
The so-called Zuma spy tapes were already in the public domain and it was "opportunistic" for President Jacob Zuma to now contend there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure, a High Court judge said on Friday.
Judge Rami Mathopo ordered Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba to hand over recordings and transcripts of conversations referred to by former Acting NPA head Mokatedi Mpshe when he formally withdrew fraud and corruption charges against Zuma in 2009.
The recordings, obtained by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), formed the basis for the decision not to prosecute Zuma.
The ruling in the High Court in Pretoria follows an application by the Democratic Alliance (DA), who wants to take Mpshe's decision on review.
Jiba was also ordered to hand over internal memoranda, reports or minutes of meetings dealing with the contents of the recordings - insofar as these documents did not serve to breach the confidentiality of Zuma's written or oral representations to the NPA.
Jiba was ordered to clearly mark which portions of the documents she regarded as confidential and the DA would have the right to approach a Judge for a ruling if there was any dispute.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in March last year also ordered the NPA to hand over the tapes and documents but Jiba refused on the basis that the SCA order did not require the NPA to produce records that were protected by confidentiality.
Zuma was of the view that the recordings and oral or written representations were protected by confidentiality.
In court, the NPA said it had "no view" about the transcripts or recordings and abided by the court's decision - a stance the judge described as "irresponsible".
The DA contended the NIA had handed transcripts of the recordings to the NPA, Mpshe had already disclosed a substantial portion of it to justify his decision and they were therefore not confidential.
Zuma did not submit any evidence to gainsay the allegations, preferring to rely on a bare denial.
Mathopo said it should have been obvious to Zuma that more was required to clarify his position instead of seeking refuge in a point of law.
"The objective facts submitted by the applicant cried out for an answer, yet the third respondent (Zuma) elected not to respond.
"(Zuma) imperilled his position in the circumstances by failing to put up any cogent explanation as to why he is entitled to the confidentiality.
"... It is opportunistic for (Zuma) to now contend that there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure."
The judge said it was "desirable" that the transcripts be produced to test whether Mpshe's decision was based on rational grounds.
"The remaining parts of the transcripts will complete a picture and give true meaning to that decision."
He said he agreed with the DA that confidentiality did not exist on the transcripts.
"I fail to understand (Zuma's) assertion that disclosure of the transcripts would affect his right to confidentiality or privilege.
"It has not been contended by any of the parties that Mpshe referred to anything more than a discussion by certain officials of the NPA on the question whether the charges should be brought before the African National Congress (ANC) Polokwane Conference or not.
"The excerpts of the transcripts which formed part of the record and which Mpshe extensively referred to in his address specifically related to the timing of the charges.
"In the light of this, I fail to see how the discussion on the timing of the charges would impact on the integrity of the charges."
It was illogical to allow Jiba to be the final arbiter.
"The first respondent (NDPP) is not an impartial stakeholder. It was a party to the SCA order. (It) has no right to independently edit the record. It must produce everything.
"The submission (by Zuma) that the transcripts are inextricable and formed part and parcel of the entire representation is rejected."
The judge also rejected arguments that producing the transcripts would infringe on Zuma's right to a fair trial.
"No cogent or plausible evidence has been advanced to show that producing the transcripts would adversely or materially affect his rights.
"The NDPP... has a duty to explain to the citizenry why and how Mpshe arrived at the decision to quash the criminal charges against the third respondent (Zuma)," said Mathopo.
Source : Sapa /str/fg/ks
Date : 16 Aug 2013 18:30
And we pay for these corrupt buffoons once again, well the NPA part at the least.
MickeyD
RIP
Zuma "opportunistic" says Judge
The so-called Zuma spy tapes were already in the public domain and it was "opportunistic" for President Jacob Zuma to now contend there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure, a High Court judge said on Friday.
Judge Rami Mathopo ordered Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba to hand over recordings and transcripts of conversations referred to by former Acting NPA head Mokatedi Mpshe when he formally withdrew fraud and corruption charges against Zuma in 2009.
The recordings, obtained by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), formed the basis for the decision not to prosecute Zuma.
The ruling in the High Court in Pretoria follows an application by the Democratic Alliance (DA), who wants to take Mpshe's decision on review.
Jiba was also ordered to hand over internal memoranda, reports or minutes of meetings dealing with the contents of the recordings - insofar as these documents did not serve to breach the confidentiality of Zuma's written or oral representations to the NPA.
Jiba was ordered to clearly mark which portions of the documents she regarded as confidential and the DA would have the right to approach a Judge for a ruling if there was any dispute.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in March last year also ordered the NPA to hand over the tapes and documents but Jiba refused on the basis that the SCA order did not require the NPA to produce records that were protected by confidentiality.
Zuma was of the view that the recordings and oral or written representations were protected by confidentiality.
In court, the NPA said it had "no view" about the transcripts or recordings and abided by the court's decision - a stance the judge described as "irresponsible".
The DA contended the NIA had handed transcripts of the recordings to the NPA, Mpshe had already disclosed a substantial portion of it to justify his decision and they were therefore not confidential.
Zuma did not submit any evidence to gainsay the allegations, preferring to rely on a bare denial.
Mathopo said it should have been obvious to Zuma that more was required to clarify his position instead of seeking refuge in a point of law.
"The objective facts submitted by the applicant cried out for an answer, yet the third respondent (Zuma) elected not to respond.
"(Zuma) imperilled his position in the circumstances by failing to put up any cogent explanation as to why he is entitled to the confidentiality.
"... It is opportunistic for (Zuma) to now contend that there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure."
The judge said it was "desirable" that the transcripts be produced to test whether Mpshe's decision was based on rational grounds.
"The remaining parts of the transcripts will complete a picture and give true meaning to that decision."
He said he agreed with the DA that confidentiality did not exist on the transcripts.
"I fail to understand (Zuma's) assertion that disclosure of the transcripts would affect his right to confidentiality or privilege.
"It has not been contended by any of the parties that Mpshe referred to anything more than a discussion by certain officials of the NPA on the question whether the charges should be brought before the African National Congress (ANC) Polokwane Conference or not.
"The excerpts of the transcripts which formed part of the record and which Mpshe extensively referred to in his address specifically related to the timing of the charges.
"In the light of this, I fail to see how the discussion on the timing of the charges would impact on the integrity of the charges."
It was illogical to allow Jiba to be the final arbiter.
"The first respondent (NDPP) is not an impartial stakeholder. It was a party to the SCA order. (It) has no right to independently edit the record. It must produce everything.
"The submission (by Zuma) that the transcripts are inextricable and formed part and parcel of the entire representation is rejected."
The judge also rejected arguments that producing the transcripts would infringe on Zuma's right to a fair trial.
"No cogent or plausible evidence has been advanced to show that producing the transcripts would adversely or materially affect his rights.
"The NDPP... has a duty to explain to the citizenry why and how Mpshe arrived at the decision to quash the criminal charges against the third respondent (Zuma)," said Mathopo.
Source : Sapa /str/fg/ks
Date : 16 Aug 2013 18:30
The so-called Zuma spy tapes were already in the public domain and it was "opportunistic" for President Jacob Zuma to now contend there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure, a High Court judge said on Friday.
Judge Rami Mathopo ordered Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba to hand over recordings and transcripts of conversations referred to by former Acting NPA head Mokatedi Mpshe when he formally withdrew fraud and corruption charges against Zuma in 2009.
The recordings, obtained by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), formed the basis for the decision not to prosecute Zuma.
The ruling in the High Court in Pretoria follows an application by the Democratic Alliance (DA), who wants to take Mpshe's decision on review.
Jiba was also ordered to hand over internal memoranda, reports or minutes of meetings dealing with the contents of the recordings - insofar as these documents did not serve to breach the confidentiality of Zuma's written or oral representations to the NPA.
Jiba was ordered to clearly mark which portions of the documents she regarded as confidential and the DA would have the right to approach a Judge for a ruling if there was any dispute.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in March last year also ordered the NPA to hand over the tapes and documents but Jiba refused on the basis that the SCA order did not require the NPA to produce records that were protected by confidentiality.
Zuma was of the view that the recordings and oral or written representations were protected by confidentiality.
In court, the NPA said it had "no view" about the transcripts or recordings and abided by the court's decision - a stance the judge described as "irresponsible".
The DA contended the NIA had handed transcripts of the recordings to the NPA, Mpshe had already disclosed a substantial portion of it to justify his decision and they were therefore not confidential.
Zuma did not submit any evidence to gainsay the allegations, preferring to rely on a bare denial.
Mathopo said it should have been obvious to Zuma that more was required to clarify his position instead of seeking refuge in a point of law.
"The objective facts submitted by the applicant cried out for an answer, yet the third respondent (Zuma) elected not to respond.
"(Zuma) imperilled his position in the circumstances by failing to put up any cogent explanation as to why he is entitled to the confidentiality.
"... It is opportunistic for (Zuma) to now contend that there was a breach of confidentiality when he benefited from the alleged disclosure."
The judge said it was "desirable" that the transcripts be produced to test whether Mpshe's decision was based on rational grounds.
"The remaining parts of the transcripts will complete a picture and give true meaning to that decision."
He said he agreed with the DA that confidentiality did not exist on the transcripts.
"I fail to understand (Zuma's) assertion that disclosure of the transcripts would affect his right to confidentiality or privilege.
"It has not been contended by any of the parties that Mpshe referred to anything more than a discussion by certain officials of the NPA on the question whether the charges should be brought before the African National Congress (ANC) Polokwane Conference or not.
"The excerpts of the transcripts which formed part of the record and which Mpshe extensively referred to in his address specifically related to the timing of the charges.
"In the light of this, I fail to see how the discussion on the timing of the charges would impact on the integrity of the charges."
It was illogical to allow Jiba to be the final arbiter.
"The first respondent (NDPP) is not an impartial stakeholder. It was a party to the SCA order. (It) has no right to independently edit the record. It must produce everything.
"The submission (by Zuma) that the transcripts are inextricable and formed part and parcel of the entire representation is rejected."
The judge also rejected arguments that producing the transcripts would infringe on Zuma's right to a fair trial.
"No cogent or plausible evidence has been advanced to show that producing the transcripts would adversely or materially affect his rights.
"The NDPP... has a duty to explain to the citizenry why and how Mpshe arrived at the decision to quash the criminal charges against the third respondent (Zuma)," said Mathopo.
Source : Sapa /str/fg/ks
Date : 16 Aug 2013 18:30