Publication: The Post Issued: Date: 2005-10-19 Reporter: Pat Poovalingam Reporter: Reporter:

Straight Talk - Jacob Zuma Not Yet in the Dock

 

Publication 

The Post
Date 2005-10-19

Reporter

 Pat Poovalingam

Web Link

www.thepost.co.za

 

Where the rule of law breaks down, there is anarchy. This is what exists today in Somalia and in parts of Iraq. And that is what happened after the Russians had been expelled from Afghanistan two decades ago by indirect but very heavy American activity.

The resulting chaos and the vacuum thereby created was filled by the very Taliban terrorists whom the Americans and the Pakistan Government has assiduously created. Every civil society, every civilised country, must have the rule of law.

And since Jacob Zuma, the patriot and freedom fighter, who was deputy president and seeks to be the next President of South Africa, must know that, his most recent conduct has been most extraordinary.

It is perfectly understandable that he is angry. He evidently genuinely believes that he is not guilty of any corrupt activity. He appears not to deny that he benefited from large, indeed very large, sums of money from entities controlled by Schabir Shaik and Vivian Reddy.

It seems to be fact that businesses controlled by each of these men have done very substantial business, perhaps hugely profitable, with service providers paid for from public taxpayers' funds. Shaik says he gave loans. Reddy insists that he merely helped a friend.

But both insist that there is no connection between those facts and the personal friendship that exists between each of them and with Jacob Zuma. And that Zuma never did influence the granting of any publicly-funded contracts to either of them. And the reality is that unless the State can prove that connection to the satisfaction of the court beyond a reasonable doubt, then Zuma must go free.

The test is very high indeed. It will not be easy for the State to discharge the onus that rests upon it.

For let us face it, corruption happens regularly. Far too frequently. But is very seldom possible to prove the fact, except in petty cases in which amateurs get caught. But big business is usually highly sophisticated. And would-be corrupters and corruptees are usually smart enough to cover their tracks. And corruption, when it does occur, takes place in hidden dark corners, very carefully. Like in adultery.

Yet adultery is much easier to prove. Tissue-typing of off-spring where they happen, is easy enough. And there is the legal dictum that "when a man and a woman remain behind locked doors for any length of time, it is not to be presumed that they were saying their Pater nosters *2 (that is prayers in Latin.)

As a Mr Naidoo once found out. He was a co-defendant with a Mrs Moodley in a divorce-cum-damages case. Naidoo as the co-defendant was giving evidence.

"Come, come, Mr Naidoo," said Mr Moodley's lawyer, "there is clear evidence that you and Mrs Naidoo went into that hotel room at nine at night and only came out at seven the next morning. Do you deny that?"

"No," replied Mr Naidoo.

"Got him!" exclaimed the gleeful lawyer. "Do you still deny that you slept with Mrs Naidoo?"

"Yes," said Mr Naidoo.

At that the Judge got irritated. "How dare you, Mr Naidoo," almost shouted the Judge. "You admit that you and Mrs Moodley spent the whole night in the room. Yet you insist that you did not sleep with her. How do you explain that?"

"My Lord," answered Mr Naidoo meekly, "it is true. We did not sleep a wink."

Fortunately for Jacob Zuma, in South Africa we inherited the legal system that had been in vogue in Holland before Napoleon and from England. In terms of that, an accused person is presumed innocent until found guilty. And when he was accused, Zuma entirely correctly insisted that he either be charged or be completely cleared. "Let him have his day in court" was the chant.

But as soon as he was charged, Zuma's very supporters, including many high-ups in the ruling ANC, did all kinds of strange things. They also did an abrupt about-turn.

He should not have to face a charge, went the cry. The President, Thabo Mbeki, must suddenly become a Hitler or Stalin or a Saddam Hussain (sic) and have the charges withdrawn. And Zuma himself made the absurd cry that this was a political trial.

Neither Zuma, nor for that matter Mayor Obed Mlaba or his deputy, Logie Naidoo, seemed prepared to let the law take its course. Incidentally, if Mlaba and Naidoo used their official cars and ratepayer-paid drivers for that excursion into Somsteu Road last week, then that in itself was an act of gross impropriety that must be condemned.

Zuma's supporters may or may not have influenced the magistrate into allowing him to sit with his counsel. But was this not special treatment because of the high political office held by Zuma, and his hundreds of supporters outside?

Would that magistrate allow the same privilege to all other accused persons? If not, why not?

Surely every person has to be equal before the law?

Otherwise, is there not abrogation of the rule of law? Advocate Kessie Naidu SC, who exuberantly crowed at what he termed "a victory", should ponder on that aspect of legal procedure, regardless of who his client may happen to be.

With acknowledgements to Pat Poovalingam and The Post.


*1  My vote is for Pat Poovalingam to be part of a legal team, any legal team.

*2  Our Fathers.