Zuma won't pay fine

[Nod]

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.

No it wasn't "in play" at the time. Don't really care that he is not paying the fine, or that he don't have to pay the fine.
The transgression, and the time it took to correct, is what irritates me. Zuma was the one after all that actually signed the code into being.

 

[phoneJunky]

I get what you are saying blunomore. But we are discussing the fine here, not the fact that he ignored the rules. But at least they aare putting structures in places to curb people ignoring the rules

 

[blunomore]

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.?

I posted the latest news. It is what we do here in current affairs.

The fines only came into being recently and will not be implemented retroactively. We can all read and we understand that, yes.

HOWEVER: If you think I will condone the fact that the rules were not adhered to, you are deluded.

 

[solo7]

who cares

 

[sox63]

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

:wtf:

I guess they expect the Public Protector to predict transgressions...

 

[Nod]

who cares

When people stop caring what government is doing, that's when you know the country is in trouble.

 

[R13...]

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.?

A president must not be able to hide behind technicalities. It looks bad, but then again Zuma is an ineffectual president and the ANC probably spend more time protecting him than running the country.

 

[porchrat]

I posted the latest news. It is what we do here in current affairs.

The fines only came into being recently and will not be implemented retroactively. We can all read and we understand that, yes.

HOWEVER: If you think I will condone the fact that the rules were not adhered to, you are deluded.

Totally agreed. It doesn't change the nature of his offence. He should have declared his interests. He violated that code of ethics.

 

[Ecco]

Cant touch this...

Love this post in reaction to the article.

 

[blunomore]

I get what you are saying blunomore. But we are discussing the fine here, not the fact that he ignored the rules. But at least they aare putting structures in places to curb people ignoring the rules

True

 

[blunomore]

:wtf:

I guess they expect the Public Protector to predict transgressions...

No.

This (i.e. that rules or legislation does not apply retroactively) is quite a common rule in law. It prevents people's established rights from being affected by newer legislation. Trust me, it is a good thing!

 

[sox63]

No.

This (i.e. that rules or legislation does not apply retroactively) is quite a common rule in law. It prevents people's established rights from being affected by newer legislation. Trust me, it is a good thing!

I'm a bit lost here, I understand that legislation cant be used retroactively, however in this case it seem the legislation was there in place already, hence the complaint to the PP, but now they are saying "sanctions" (punishment in my understanding), cant be applied retroactively. Which to me makes no sense...

 

[blunomore]

I'm a bit lost here, I understand that legislation cant be used retroactively, however in this case it seem the legislation was there in place already, hence the complaint to the PP, but now they are saying "sanctions" (punishment in my understanding), cant be applied retroactively. Which to me makes no sense...

It probably means that the rules were without teeth before!

In other words, it sounds like they had a rule that said "all cabinet members must declare their interests", but they did not have a penalty clause to say what happens if you do not declare your interests.

The rule was therefore worthless up to now.

 

[R13...]

It probably means that the rules were without teeth before!

In other words, it sounds like they had a rule that said "all cabinet members must declare their interests", but they did not have a penalty clause to say what happens if you do not declare your interests.

The rule was therefore worthless up to now.

The rules can't have teeth because what you're doing is asking parliament to determine it's own punishment. You think the interim month's fine is anything other than a slap on the wrist? Given the consequences of not declaring and the amount of corruption in this country nothing short of expulsion (as Vavi suggested) should be expected. Vavi suggested an independent body chaired by a retired judge ought to be established to determine these things.

 

[Ronjay]

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

WTF is that supposed to mean? He didn't breach the ethics code prior to the enactment of it, it was already in use. Fusking lying politicians.

 

[JungleBoy]

WTF is that supposed to mean? He didn't breach the ethics code prior to the enactment of it, it was already in use. Fusking lying politicians.

Imagine you kill someone last year and you are tried and found guilty this year ...then soon after you have been found guilty someone in gvt decides that the death penalty must be brought back...and you are then put on death row. That would be crazy...

 

[sox63]

It probably means that the rules were without teeth before!

In other words, it sounds like they had a rule that said "all cabinet members must declare their interests", but they did not have a penalty clause to say what happens if you do not declare your interests.

The rule was therefore worthless up to now.

Okay, this makes sense then:

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.

They decided on a standard punishment only after he was found to have breached the code?

 

[Ronjay]

Imagine you kill someone last year and you are tried and found guilty this year ...then soon after you have been found guilty someone in gvt decides that the death penalty must be brought back...and you are then put on death row. That would be crazy...

Um, not. You see in that case I would still be punished for my crime in the first place. Zuma breached code but doesn't get fined at all. It's like saying I killed someone but because the death penalty has been brought back I don't have to be punished for my crime.

 

[JungleBoy]

Um, not. You see in that case I would still be punished for my crime in the first place. Zuma breached code but doesn't get fined at all. It's like saying I killed someone but because the death penalty has been brought back I don't have to be punished for my crime.

As been said before ... this rule had more bark and no bite...now they have added the bite to go along with the bark.

 

[blunomore]

The rules can't have teeth because what you're doing is asking parliament to determine it's own punishment. You think the interim month's fine is anything other than a slap on the wrist? Given the consequences of not declaring and the amount of corruption in this country nothing short of expulsion (as Vavi suggested) should be expected. Vavi suggested an independent body chaired by a retired judge ought to be established to determine these things.

Sounds harsh.