Letters

Once again the principles of the noble profession have been trampled on and the wider South African public has lost out in the criminal justice system.

Every concerned citizen is aware that at the beginning of the State vs Shaik criminal trial, presiding Judge Hilary Squires ruled against a live broadcast from the court.

Court A was too small to accommodate electronic equipment and cameras, it was argued, would have an intimidatory effect on the witnesses.

But since the state has closed its case, what is now at play - since the court was not generous enough to give the public a window on who was tried in the courtroom - is the legal guru's artistic skills in arguing the merits and demerits of the state's case.

The masses should be reminded that Judge Hilary Squires is on record as saying, when he ruled during his opening speech, that he despised the mention of Deputy President Jacob Zuma in court because, as he told state prosecutor Billy Downer, "Zuma was not charged and he is not on trial".

While there is no inclination to pre-empt Squires' verdict, it is unfortunate that Downer was allowed to direct his venomous attack at Zuma when he commenced his closing arguments.

This is worrisome because nobody nor any state organ had prevented Downer from prosecuting Zuma.

Instead this character assassination was launched on the pretext of court privilege.

What offence did Zuma commit for Downer to allege that he had contravened his "constitutional duty by sustaining friendship with his long-time comrade and financial adviser"?

What do commentators make of Downer's argument that "their relationship was a deplorable system of corrupt patronage calculated to maintain Zuma in positions where he (Zuma) could further the interest of Shaik and his companies."?

With acknowledgements to Nkonzwenhle Mqadi and the City Press.