Is it not important to ask what motivates Judge Hilary Squires to wait for more than 12 months before saying that the phrase “generally corrupt relationship” is nowhere to be found in his judgment in Schabir Shaik’s case?

Is it not fair to ask what motivated him to go to the media first about this?

Is it wrong to be concerned about why the judge does not care about being seen to be contemptuous towards the judicial system, let alone about publicly embarrassing his esteemed colleagues?

Are there not ethical guidelines for good conduct for judges; or forums where “dirty legal linen” can be washed in private?

If anything, it occurs to me that Squires has found a way of expressing his vested interest in the case(s).

There is nothing wrong in that; however, the manner must befit an esteemed judge.

Even then, should we be genuinely concerned about whether the phrase, “generally corrupt relationship” is there or not there in the Squires judgment? Shouldn’t we be worried only if Squires was arguing that the interpretation did not befit the findings of the case, rather than subjecting the entire nation to a study on “phraseology”?

Based on the merits of the case, is it unreasonable to conclude that the relationship between Jacob Zuma and Shaik was one that could be fairly summed up as “generally corrupt”?

I am sure not.

Phillemon Mathane
Pretoria

With acknowledgements to Phillemon Mathane and Business Day.