Under the law of evidence, prima facie evidence implies that proof to the contrary is still possible. In the absence of proof to the contrary, prima facie evidence will, generally speaking, become conclusive evidence. Thus, the state bears the onus of proving every element of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It is disingenuous of Bulelani Ngcuka to say that the prospect of successfully securing a conviction is next to nothing. Surely that is for the courts to decide?

People are taken to court not because they are guilty but on the basis of the prima facie evidence available at the time. Whether the case is winnable or not is neither here nor there.

For as long as Deputy President Jacob Zuma is not brought before a court to disprove the prima facie evidence that the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions says it has against him, a dark cloud will continue hovering above his head.

It would be prudent to take this matter to its logical conclusion by affording Zuma a chance to appear before a court of law, which is the only competent institution to pronounce him guilty or exonerate him, notwithstanding the fact that his constitutional rights have been violated by those who have already found him guilty in a trial by media.

It is premature, parochial and puerile for opposition parties to call for Zuma's resignation, given that he is being denied an opportunity to clear himself in court. It will only be appropriate to call for his resignation if the courts find him guilty.

Leslie Seth Kgapola, Tshwane

With acknowledgements to Leslie Seth and the Sunday Times.