Zuma won't pay fine

[blunomore]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=nw20100727183538391C335540

South African President Jacob Zuma will not be fined for violating the cabinet's ethics code, after he was eight months late in declaring his assets, a government spokesman said Tuesday.

This is despite a cabinet agreement last week that fines should be paid if ministers or the president fail to comply with the executive ethics code.

Government spokesman Themba Maseko said cabinet members could be fined up to a month's salary, or see their salaries and benefits reduced for a period of up to 15 days.

However Maseko said Zuma will not pay a fine as the "sanctions did not apply retroactively".

Zuma should have declared all his financial interests within 60 days of taking office last year. The public protector, a government watchdog, found Zuma took 10 months to declare his assets after his swearing-in. - AFP

 

[AstroTurf]

Cant touch this...

 

[davemc]

I am Jacks opened mouthed shock-surprise.

 

[Former member 61586]

typical

 

[Merlin]

Animal Farm.

It's truly amazing how stupid the ANC and it's supporters are.

The country managed to more or less unite itself behind the wasteful stupidity that was the SWC and now the ANC is going back to it's old ways.

Anyone who thought this sh*thole of a c*ntry stood a chance based upon the rose-tinted SWC is in for a serious wake up call...very soon.

 

[LazyLion]

What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Corruption, secrecy, graft, money-laundering, etc.... these are the things the ANC will come to be known for in future decades.

What a lovely example to set for the nation.

 

[R13...]

The public protector did find Zuma guilty but in the same breath said it was the guidelines' fault that he was tardy. Mind you there have been 3 other presidencies before Zuma and in all those terms the guidelines were fine.

And now cabinet has decided that if it (cabinet) doesn't comply it will fine its members month's salary. What a joke?! The criminal decide his own punishment.

 

[Palimino]

I am Jacks opened mouthed shock-surprise.

Why? Did you **seriously** think it would be any different?

 

[JungleBoy]

But aren't we missing the point here?
The fine has just been enacted now whereas before there was no such. Now how are you going to get him to pay up when he transgressed before this sanction was put in place???

 

[zippy]

Gotta love technicalities

 

[porchrat]

But aren't we missing the point here?
The fine has just been enacted now whereas before there was no such. Now how are you going to get him to pay up when he transgressed before this sanction was put in place???

If this is the case then totally fair.

The dude couldn't be expected to follow rules that didn't exist at the time.

 

[killadoob]

If he did pay the fine then you would all be moaning about the waste of our tax money

 

[Balstrome]

But aren't we missing the point here?
The fine has just been enacted now whereas before there was no such. Now how are you going to get him to pay up when he transgressed before this sanction was put in place???

I am sure you would have another opinion if it was the DA that had to pay the fine,

 

[JungleBoy]

I am sure you would have another opinion if it was the DA that had to pay the fine,

How do you know that? Paul the psychic octopus, is that you?

 

[blunomore]

The public protector did find Zuma guilty but in the same breath said it was the guidelines' fault that he was tardy. Mind you there have been 3 other presidencies before Zuma and in all those terms the guidelines were fine.

Umm ... does he not have "people"? All VIP's have "people" ... minions who do these things as a matter of administrative course ... surely this was a minor admin task for someone ... ??

But aren't we missing the point here?
The fine has just been enacted now whereas before there was no such. Now how are you going to get him to pay up when he transgressed before this sanction was put in place???

The issue is not the fine. The issue is ignoring the rules.

 

[Nod]

If this is the case then totally fair.

The dude couldn't be expected to follow rules that didn't exist at the time.

From: http://www.ipocafrica.org/index.php...catid=85:conflicts-of-interest-news&Itemid=99

"In the course of that discussion there was a lack of clarity on whether he really needs to declare. The lack of clarity was on the interpretation of the language in the act.

"There was a feeling that no, he does not need to declare - and also, there was a consideration of what has been the precedent," Magwenya said.

The Executive Members' Ethics Act became law in 1998. It specifically provided for an Executive Members' Ethics Code to be drawn up to prevent the potential for, or any actual, conflict of interest arising out of a clash between private interests and public duties, and to guard against people elected to positions of trust using them to enrich themselves or improperly benefit anyone else.

The act clearly states "cabinet member" includes "the president".

 

[phoneJunky]

I have to agree with jungleboy here. He can't be fined because he transgressed before the punishment came into play, a bit like a game of magic.

 

[blunomore]

I have to agree with jungleboy here. He can't be fined because he transgressed before the punishment came into play, a bit like a game of magic.

I do not have an issue with the fine. I have an issue with the trangression!

 

[JungleBoy]

The issue is not the fine. The issue is ignoring the rules.

The rules existed...but the sanction (the fine) is something that has only been put in place now.
I think the discussion here is not about whether he is guilty or not but whether he should pay the fine that did not exist before. Get it.?

 

[porchrat]

From: http://www.ipocafrica.org/index.php...catid=85:conflicts-of-interest-news&Itemid=99

and the fine itself?

Was it in play at the time?

Do we now take every traffic fine I've ever received and adjust my fines upwards retroactively to reflect the new charges every time they change? Nope.