Lakela Kaunda's letter about a story on Deputy President Jacob Zuma, May or may not (October 8), invites a response.

Why the jarring tone, combining condescension and reprimand?

The allegations against Zuma are serious. From the office of the presidency I wish for a statement of concern about integrity in public life; for general not sectional interest.

If divisions within the party rule this out, fair enough, but then rather stay silent.

Scoffing references to "faceless sources" and to allegations having become a "media pastime" grate further. It is generally understood that journalists cannot disclose certain sources and in pursuing the Zuma affair they are doing their job.

Everyone knows journalists are not necessarily even-handed or infallible. That is not the same as being prepared to accept they are dupes or paid liars.

Above all, the attempt to represent the Zuma affair as a purely legal matter is a subterfuge offensive to honest folk.

When government's response to media investigation begins to sound like a dodgy lawyer trying to beat the rap, voters smell a rat.

The great majority do not need a judgment to decide what the main question is for them: am I happy for this person or party to stay in office?

With acknowledgements to Paul Whelan and the Business Day.