A great pity. This tells people that politicians can be 'too big to stand trial', and that political advancement is all about identifying the next hugely popular politician and giving him lots of stuff. That's always been the case, but now it seems you can give him stuff illegally too. Because, if he becomes popular enough, he will be able to do no wrong, literally.
I don't know what to think. So we've avoided a short term meltdown and potentially violent elections, but long term I don't think this does us any favours. All I know is that I've done two posts on this issue without saying 'rule of law' once. Oh yes, and that the Shaik judgement definitely does mean that Zuma is guilty of something corrupt. That is fact. If it weren't, Zuma's assertions that he is innocent should have led him a long time ago to opening proceedings against the NPA. He didn't, of course, because it was useful to run around claiming victimisation, knowing that right at the end, just before the election, you would get off scott free.
What's next? Zille has said she would force the NPA to defend its decision in court if it did this. We'll see. I just want to see written reasons. The NPA promised us they would provide some.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment