The fact that ANC president Jacob Zuma is purportedly implicating former South African president Thabo Mbeki in respect of wrongdoing in the arms deal and influencing the Scorpions in respect of the Special Browse Mole report are not the basis upon which the NPA can rely to drop the charges against Zuma. All this means is that the NPA should now, if this is the case, be charging Mbeki with the crimes which this new evidence supports.
In the simplest terms if I murder someone and then advise the NPA that my boss murdered two others it should have no effect on the charge of murder against me. Where it may play a part is where I offer to give evidence against my boss in return for indemnity from prosecution — if I tell the truth — in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedures Act 51 of 1977 as amended. Here I would be given indemnity subject to the magistrate or judge at the trial of my boss confirming that he is satisfied with my evidence. Zuma has confirmed that this will not be the route of his choice.
In the ordinary course however the guilt or innocence of others in the same or other criminal acts is not the basis for dropping charges against me. My cooperation — subject to it not being in terms of Section 204 — would be appropriate in convincing a court, upon my conviction, that there are factors which mitigate against a heavy sentence. It could also be used as evidence during a trial (though very risky) to show that I am a lawful citizen who seeks to assist the authorities in rooting out crime.
What it isn’t, is a basis at law upon which the NPA can rely to drop the charges.
In terms of defences it does not provide a ground for justification which excludes unlawfulness nor confirm an absence of any of the elements of the crimes with which Zuma has been charged. At best it seeks to suggest others are also guilty of crimes.
In terms of an actual basis for dropping the charges let’s turn to our favourite professor who sets out the following headings:
After taking representations from Zuma the NPA concludes the case is unwinnable.
That it is not in the public interest to proceed.
That Zuma could not get a fair trial as guarunteed in terms of Section 35 of the Constitution.
I urge you all to read the article as Professor de Vos sets out the pros and cons in respect of each. What it reinforces as far as I am concerned is the fact that the NPA would be adopting a kamikaze approach if they decline to furnish reasons for a decision to drop the charges if this turns out to be the case. Not only would they then be fielding questions on every conceivable reason for their actions — which they don’t exclude by giving the actual reason — but their credibility would be destroyed by a perception of being the political puppets of the government.
The perception is that we lost the Scorpions because they were too effective in dealing with corruption, Pikoli because he wouldn’t back down to the government or ruling party and now — if the NPA relent without giving their reasons — the NPA because of political pressure from the ruling party.
The next government had best employ the best spin doctor in the history of that ignoble calling to try and somehow convince South Africans that there is in fact a legal system which all South Africans are accountable to, that will be enforced against all South Africans, carried on by law enforcement which is encouraged to tackle crime from the most powerful in the land downwards, where no cadres will be deployed, nor pressure brought to influence their decisions in favour of certain favoured people … Wait, must dash, a flock of pot bellied pigs is flying over our roof!
Traps,
The NPA have not yet given reasons for why Zuma will not be prosecuted. A very difficult task indeed.
I agreed with you some time back that a political solution should have been found as anything else would tear the country apart. Not only would Mbeki be implicated so so too would Mandela, his wife and many other top ANC people.
At least the judiciary can now heave a sigh of relief – what judge would want to preside over a Zuma trial with Malema and friends baying “Kill, kill, kill!” outside the court?
All that now remains to be seen is whether this delopment will push the country over the brink at which the ANC have brought the country to.
ag, shame.
zuma gets to get off. his legal team will say it’s because of everyone else being just as guilty. so, um charge them all.
zuma not being tried, for whatever reason, gets to play with investor confidence. and that’s really nasty that the *party* was holding on to the “really good” evidence that incriminated *everyone*.
time to make some phone calls.
Implicating Mbeki’s involvement (arms deal) TOGETHER with implicating Mbeki in political interefence with the scorpions and NPA’s investigation and prosecution (persecution) of Zuma would CLEARLY establish prosecution WITH fear AND favour. Surely, that would be unconstitutional.
Traps, Was Zuma not framed?
Just consider the following anomalies:
1. Zuma, who is allegedly one party to a corruption charge, is not charged together with Shaik. Why? A question raised by Squires and Nicholson but not yet answered sufficiently?
2. For what support did Ngcuka thank Maduna?
3. If you consider Pikoli a victim, why don’t you accept his testimony that there has been on occassion political inteference in the scorpions and NPA?
4. Why don’t you probe questions why Pikoli held meetings with the Justice minister and the president to discuss NPA prosecution decisions? We are meant to naively believe that these meetings which were initially denied by Mbeki were just to brief Mbeki?
5. Is it not odd that Zuma who was not a cabinet member when Mandela was president could be THE alleged “BIG FISH” in the arms deal corruption? Was it not Mbeki who was Deputy President who was ultimately involved in the arms deal?
6. Zuma only became the ANC deputy president in 1997 and the deputy state president in 1999-Well after the arms deal has been concluded, critical payments made and other SA priorities like decisions not to allow ESKOM to build more power stations taken by the then reponsible minister Mlambo Ngcuka.
I say the NPA calls Zuma’s bluff and state that should they be given evidence that implicates Mbeki by Zuma, that Mbeki will duly be prosecuted.
@ Traps
You missed the earth with an axe!
The implication of Mr T.Mbeki in the Arms Deal saga proves that there was a political meddling in the Jacob Zuma case. Simply, if the then president was involved why was he not charged? Or why was he not in anyway officially implicated by the NPA if he was involved(considering a rule that says the president of the Republic can’t be charge)!
All the evidence provided by the JZ legal team proves is that NPA was never an impartial entity, it was forever driven by political ambitions,hence JZ’s argument that charges must be dropped holds water.
Its good move by him considering most NPA members including Mpshe are “Mr Mbeki loyalists”,how do you charge(“bit”) the hands that fed you?!
NPA would NOT charge Mr.Mbeki but they would charge JZ!!
…The only thing that seems certain, is a flock of potbellied pigs flying over your roof.
I’ve seen the Medical Profession and institutions,been reduced to shameful skeletons of their former self…I’ve no reason not to think the proud legal profession – will duely follow the same course. Solution,before its too late = vote the corrupt ANC out of power.
Your last line says it all, Traps. As long as people like Balfour are in charge of the criminal justice system, pigs in SA will come with wings.
Oh damn Traps – This blog shows you are now on the back foot, What to do, What to do!
How ARE you going to argue so that your favourite el Presidente to get off his Fraud, Corruption, Racketeering and Tax Evasion charges?
I have found it much easier in life to live by principles like honesty and integrity than to try bending these virtues to suite my cause. You may want to try it sometime…
If living by principles works for you, try recommending it to de Vos also.
LETS JUST GIVE ZUMA HIS DAY IN COURT
You’re perfectly right Traps.
Having evidence against another does not exonerate you.
It does show that:
1 Zuma and the ANC know Zuma is guilty of the crimes he is accused of.
2 That the ANC is pressurising the NPA into believing that if they go ahead they’ll end up prosecuting masses of ANC honcho’s which is “not in the country’s best interests”.
The latter is pure blackmail as the people making not-so-subtle threats to make country ungovernable are the ANC, who wish to benefit from sweeping ANC corruption under the carpet (Arms deal, Petrogate, Travelgate, Chancellor House – the list is growing).
How sad that we stand to lose what we fought so hard for. Wouldn’t it be frightening if the ANC actually lost the next general election? Can you imagine the ANC backlash as the new government sets about investigating the last 15 years of corruption and theft of the public purse?
They’re threatening a return to the 1980′s and we’re being sucker-punched by it.
Despite their lovely manifesto the (even more) corrupt ANC will make the poor poorer.
Vote ANC and save the poor? What a laugh!
Right.
But isn’t this precisely the solution you were yourself calling for a month or so back? What’s changed your mind since then?
Traps, what will be the likely fallout if Zuma implicates Mbeki, the ANC, half the current cabinet and heads of govt depts/agencies, not only in benefitting from the arms deal, but also in destroying evidence? IMHO, here are my intial conclusions:
* It will nullify the Arms Deal Inquiry and cast a massive shadow on those semi-independent agencies that did the investigation: Public Protector, NPA and whoever else were involved.
* Investigations will be required to determine if there were deliberate cover-ups at these agencies, with possible prosecutions.
* It will massively dent the confidence by the SA public in these institutions, their protection of the rule of law and protection of the public against abuses by the state.
* It will destroy the confidence and trust in the SA govt, not only by investors and outsiders, but also by the SA public.
* It will require the NPA to investigate and possibly prosecute half the cabinet, ANC, heads of govt depts, etc.
However good it may be to uphold the law in these instances and see the guilty prosecuted, it will not be in the national interest to have half the cabinet govt heads facing possible prosecution, resulting in the govt effectively paralised for years, not to mention the destruction of expertise and trust.
Question: has any person or persons held discussions of any sort with the acting NDPP or any of the senior figures in the NPA relating to the matter of Mr Zuma’s charges that have NOT dealt with the specific information supplied in writing to the NPA?
Put simply, has there been any communication or interaction outside of the “official” representations made?
If there has, then I suggest that a crime has been committed by the person(s) involved, and if the charges are dropped, then a crime will have been committed by the acting NDPP.
This is a Mexican standoff plain and simple.
Corporate governance is thrust on Private companies. How do we as SA citizens enforce corporate governance on our Government and municipalities and the workers who misuse their authority. As tax payers could we not sue or make these crooks liable for corruption when the government themselves do not proceed with an investigation or charge.
Grant
If the aspiration to live under the rule of law is going to ‘tear the country apart’, the country is already ‘over the brink’ you fear – because if it is not this issue now that does it, it will be another one later.
Oh dear. Now isn’t it a pity that the Scorpions have been disbanded – who is going to do all the investigation and digging to get the proof of Mbeki’s alleged wrongdoings?
I’m all for investigating everyone who is implicated – it will be one way to show the world we are serious about corruption and rooting it out. But if everybody drags their cases through the court like Zuma did (and is still doing), how long will it take, and at what cost to the taxpayer?
Wow and we still have a whole month to go before election day. What will the ANC circus roll out next..a whole lotta trouble I reckon. How they insult our intelligence>
MFB – I called for a political solution months ago as covered in the previous articles.
I’m not saying the NPA should or shouldn’t drop charges just clarifying when it’s appropriate and when it’s not.
Traps…I did not hear your howls of protest at the NPA when criminals like Thatcher got a sweet deal! I did not hear your howls of protest when the NPA made deals with murderers, drug dealers and other criminals most of them white! Just like the opposition parties who applauds the independent entities when they rule against Zuma but change their tune very quickly when he scores a rare and seldom victory against the powers of our judiciary. You cannot condone “deals with drug dealers and murderers” but when it concern JZ it always amounts to interference. i did not hear De Vos’ comments when criminals are been offered amnesty just to bring down one person. The first thing a new ANC govt. must do is to clip the wings of the NPA and abolished these unlawfull deals with murderers and criminals. The people will demand it!
I find it puzzling that the former President would want to influence the NPA to prosecute JZ for wrong doing in the arms deal whilst knowing that he had acted dubiously in the very same arms deal! This doesn’t make sense! Surely it’s one or the other – either Thabo Mbeki is guilty of wrong doing in the arms deal or he is guilty of politically interfering with the NPA in regard to the JZ case – or he is innocent on both charges. Were he complicit in wrong doing in the arms deal then surely the last thing he would want was to have the NPA force open a can of worms which once open would reveal his own dirty linen? If he is guilty of anything, then to my mind, it has to be one or the other – guilty of both makes no sense at all.
the center cannot hold!the water will break anytime now.charge everyone who was in government at that time and leave them to prove their innocence.not many will make it to the other(innocence)side.if we are going to make exceptions in our criminal justice sytem,then let my suggestion be the exception-go on charge everyone!we won’t have anyone to run the country and seemingly we might have to hold another general election soon(two in one year-classic)
Bongo – I’m the “genius” who said give Zuma a political settlement long ago.
So I’m hardly likely to bomb Thatcher etc.
In terms of Zuma I am pointing out where it is applicable and where it is not. As I said last post I’ll be relieved if they are dropped.
Rose Marrow
Maybe TM is ‘guilty’ of not protecting JZ
Pierre De Vos is the most overrated legal analyst in this country. This is the same De Vos who got his analysis horribly wrong at Nicholson’s ruling. Like all other analysts he is just as biased!
Bongo
You misunderstand the nature of the plea bargain. It is only used when a bigger fish is in sight or if there is not enough evidence to go all the way and a compromise of sorts is reached – see Adrian Vlok. There was no direct evidence which is why they got a plea bargain. The NPA could not have hoped to win a full-blown trial. It also saves considerably on the expense of a trial.
Its not a race-thing either since the NPA is staffed, managed and run mostly by blacks!
If the whole of the ANC elite has to go to jail for corruption then so be it! Why are we so scared of them? Its like 2 big guys threatening 100 if they do not do their bidding. If the 100 stand up, the 2 are finished.
Send the corrupt to jail. The next batch of leaders will be too scared to thrust their dirty hands into the cookie jar. That’s what we need more than anything as a country.
If that means Mbeki, Erwin, Zuma et al are cell mates then sorry for them.
@ Mike Atkins what you and other legally trained people are saying is probably correct if a strictly legal lens is used. However, those who mention social , economic and political implications also have a point. Maybe a restorative rather than a retributive approach to justice is required, as it has the potential to combine all of the above.
The goal (justice) can be achieved far sooner by this internationally accepted approach. The NPA should consider applying the principles embedded in some of their, and the Dept’s of Justice & Correctional Service’s marginal Restorative Justice pilot projects. It is an approach whose time has come and a great opportunity to demonstrate that accountability can be achieved by peacemaking rather than warmaking approaches to crime. Plus, the principles are indigenous – simply repackaged and branded in the West (which should prove to the cynics among us that it is not hocus pocus).
MADODA,Zuma and Shaik first met Alan Thetard(ex Thales MD)back in 1991,its all lies that he wasnt part of the whole arms-deal saga because he was in KZN govt.For more info,get the second last edition of NOSEWEEK and read an article titled “In the court of public opinion”,everything will be much clearer!
Traps
Did you not call for a political solution previously? Your pronouncements presently are interesting.
Has anyone read the Sunday Independent? Individuals that are close to former president Mbeki state that Mbeki is unfased by the call for him to account – apparently he will be happy to do so. Makes one think!
Sarah Henkeman,
The Restorative approach with Mr Zuma would be very interesting. Could you perhaps spell out how the principles could be applied in this instance? (BTW, I worked on the documentation for the Restorative Justice Conference in 2001 that was organised by Jo-Ann Downs of the ACDP for the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.)
I’m starting to think Mbeki should be charged, if only to clear his name.
I dont think anyone has substantiated the conspiracy claims and i’m starting to think this is the whole point. Never testing these allegations means the suspicion around Mbeki has a longer shelf life, long enough for JZ to never see the inside of a court and ofcourse long enough to serve his term. The trouble ofcourse is Newton’s third law of motion…
I couldnt agree more with you Frank,at one of the ANC NEC meetings,zuma was allegedly asked to prove the Political Conspiracy theory and he admitted that he is unable to and matter was closed.Thereafter,he declared “i’ll take the entire ANC leadership down with me if charged”,now we hear that only Mbeki and two cabinet ministers were implicated in his representations.That probably explains the obsession with the political solutions to make this go away quietly,where is the entire leadership that zuma threatened to take down with?Are some of them maybe in his camp?
George Makola,
Surely, you cannot trust your NOSEWEEK source, especially when the title is called “in the court of public opinion”. It is clear that that publication is talking about opinions and not established facts.
In 1991 the National Party and De Klerk were still in power,there was violence, conflict and CODESA. The focus of the country was on negotiations and ending violence. It is a fact that Zuma was not even leading the ANC as chairman in KZN in 1991 but was busy fostering peace during that time. It was because of those effort that he was recognised in KZN. Surely, you can’t be suggesting that Zuma was preoccupied with how he was going to make money out of an arms dealin 1991.
Please base your argument on facts not opinions and historical distortions. The first democratic vote in SA was in 1994. IFP won the provincial elections of KZN. From 1994 to 1999 Zuma did not hold direct public national office that was directly related to defence and the arms deal.
I think we forget that the main reason the ANC is falling apart today is NOT Polokwane but what happened after the Arms Deal. I think it was thought that if Yengeni takes the fall, the whole thing might just disappear.
Now its a simple case of who covered their arse better and taking cover for those who don’t have exit strategies.
We won’t see the last of this till we have an independant Arms Deal inquiry. Maybe ask the UN to come and dig around like those nuke inspectors do.
just a thought from a legally impotent (hope its the right word) analyst from your university of the bitter.
There is only one obstacle between the good people of SA and a country of justice , respect for the rule of law and ultimately prosperity – and that is the ANC and the majority who elected them to power .
The chances of us changing for the better in the near future – ZERO !!!.
@Mike Atkins
The suggestion was not that it be applied to Mr Zuma as an individual, but that it be applied to (a) get to the bottom of the arms deal mystery (b) provide a process informed by principles that could yield the following results (i) full disclosure (ii) accountability (iii) appropriate reparations etc. to embolden people to come forward. For those who insist on retribution, maybe a sanction that requires those guilty to resign from public office for a set period. This protracted arms deal saga is sapping the lifeblood out of this society. Opposition parties should be part of the process to stop the bubblegum politics of point scoring for reflected glory. Let them really work in the interest of this society and come up with a just solution.
Its a matter of early warning early action – that does not have to kill the patient (our society)while trying to cut out the cancer.
What is my agenda I hear you murmer in the subtext? I am completely self-interested here – I am tired of living in a society that lurches from one crisis to the next since the day of my birth. I would prefer to get down to the business of healing – starting with extreme inequalities in this nation. For that I raise my head above the parapet and accept the shit that lands on my head for speaking ‘above my station in life’ which is near the bottom in this highly stratified society!
MADODA,Please read that article before commenting on something you dont know.Im not suggesting that Zuma is guilty or not(we dont know that yet)im merely challenging this often repeated lie that Zuma was in the dark about the Arms-deal negotiations.The arms deal was first discussed in ANC NEC Meetings which Zuma was part of and it was even proven in Shaik’s trial that Alain Thetard was introduced to Shaik by Zuma when Thales and many foreign firms set up base in SA looking for business opportunities and were trying to get familiar with would-be-rulers.Its funny how you can speculate-without fact s-relying on what ANC spin-doctors are saying in media but when one mentions proven facts,one’s sources who report on well publicised proven facts are dismissed as having ulterior motives.Shame really!
Buti of the Young Communist League is already boasting that “the NPA is now sobering up”, that they are “vindicated” and that “the chrges against Zuma were trumped up”
Which is WHY we can’t afford for the NPA to drop charges.
@Lyndal, everything we utter reveals a conscious or unconscious agenda. Why does your last post sound more like a competition between a constructed ‘us’ and ‘them’? Are you interested in justice for the common good or in a competition with the alliance? (By the way, who is the ‘we’ you are talking to in your last sentence?)
Lets separate calls for retribution and party political competition which benefits a few; from justice and the promotion of principles and standards that favours everyone in this society.
In the final anaysis, do your contributions (even harsh criticisms)build or destroy?
Just a bit confused sometimes by your position.
Sarah
Which last post? I don’t know what you are referring to.
…And today’s episode of, ‘as the stomach turns’, the interception tapes. I had to go & refresh my memory of the RICA (2002). No provision for JZ’s lawyers getting such material. If this is the basis of the representations, the NPA must add not subtract from charge sheet.
@Lyndall Beddy on March 25th, 2009 at 9:36 am
This is the post I am referring to. It sounds very adversarial
frank:
i agree with you 100%. add to, not subtract from, the charge sheet.
eish
Sarah
On which post?