Friday, 25 January 2008

Legal opinion needed! I think (hope) this person is delusional

"There is no case against Zuma". I accept that the NPA's messed things up, but can there really be no case against Zuma? Hell.

Hands off Jacob Zuma!
Pule Malefane: COMMENT
23 January 2008 11:59
Should ANC president Jacob Zuma’s innocence or guilt be decided by the courts?

We might not all be law experts, but we fully understand the Constitution, because it is a product of public participation and represents the will of the people. We also expect the newly elected men and women of the ANC national executive committee to possess a minimum basic understanding of this supreme law of the land and to ensure that it is not undermined by anyone for political expediency. We have every right as citizens to ensure that the courts are responsible and to hold the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) accountable.

The NPA has abused the judicial process and as a result the state is not entitled to carry on with prosecuting Zuma. The courts should set aside the case, not on its merits, but because continuing the prosecution would damage the integrity of the justice system.

A judge has the power to dismiss a case if the defendant is unlikely to receive a fair trial. A court may also act where there is grave misconduct on the part of police, the executive or the prosecuting authority. The judiciary must have the respect and the support of the community it serves in order to properly administer criminal justice.

The courts should therefore intervene and demand that the NPA stop its oppressive behaviour. Zuma deserves a fair pre-trial process and a speedy trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Through its behaviour, the NPA has destroyed its chances of conviction on a “winnable case” and therefore Zuma cannot be allowed to be humiliated and projected as a common criminal.

It took the NPA 15 months after Judge Msimang’s ruling to complete a draft indictment for instituting another prosecution against Zuma. This, in itself, suffices for the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, as justice delayed is justice denied.

The Public Protector has also been critical of the conduct and behavior of the NPA, damning Bulelani Ngcuka for his irresponsible utterances, which infringed on Zuma’s constitutional right to dignity and caused him to be prejudiced.

What was strange was the sacking of Zuma as the deputy president of South Africa and Ngcuka being rewarded with the appointment of his wife to replace Zuma. As though this was not enough, the very same NPA embarked in a veiled effort to influence the outcome of the ANC’s Polokwane conference by constantly issuing media statements about Zuma’s pending charges. They did all this driven by arrogance and undermining the very same rule of law they are supposed to promote and protect only because they want to influence political outcomes.

The 13 additional charges against Zuma are in retaliation for the ruling by Judge Msimang. Simply because the NPA did not like the ruling does not give them the right to up the ante by filing charges that they would otherwise not have filed in the beginning. They want us to believe that their case matures like fine wine, which is ludicrous in law.

There is no case against Zuma. The ANC NEC should demand that the court dismiss this case and instruct the NPA to stop its shenanigans.

We members of the ANC are saying “Hands off Jacob Zuma” -- and if he should be the next president of South Africa, let it be so. The NPA has no business whatsoever in our leadership preferences.

Pule Malefane is a member of the ANC regional executive committee in Ekurhuleni


Paul said...

I still don't get it.... where is the logic that he will not get a fair trial. They can either argue that he won't get a fair trial because public opinions as to the outcome have already been decided through the media, which would nulify almost all high profile legal proceedings, or they can argue that the NPA is not independent in the matter as they have political motives, which would mean that no political figure could ever get a fair trial, and they are thus all immune from prosecution.
Somebody please explain it to me.....

Dr Phil said...

exaccery. hence alec hogg's comments on JZ at the WEF:

"In 1992 Nelson Mandela arrived in the Alpine village as a devout socialist. He left realising that the world had changed irreversibly after the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. For the new ANC leader, it will hopefully be a similar conversion, but on a different front. While he clearly appreciates the benefits of free enterprise, Zuma has a distorted and somewhat naive interpretation of the role of the media. Weffers may well provide different insights."


fran said...

Three words: separation of powers. "The ANC should demand that the court dismiss this case and instruct the NPA to stop its shenanigans"? The NEC has no right to choose what the court elects to hear, nor whom the NPA decides to lay charges against. Perhaps Mr Malefane should read the Constitution....