Publication: Sunday Times
Issued:
Date: 2008-09-28
Reporter: Mike Bowes
|
Don't Sacrifice SA Law over Zuma
|
The media have done the public less than a service in their coverage of the
recent shenanigans in failing to highlight the criminality
of the actions of the president, the justice minister and others.
In presenting these as political scandals, which they are,
not enough emphasis has been placed on the fact
that the conduct has been criminal.
All of the events that Judge Chris Nicholson recounted in reaching his finding
that there had been interference in the prosecution of Jacob Zuma were already
in the public domain.
However, the judge's statement that it's a serious
criminal offence to interfere with an investigation seems to have taken us all
*1, not least the NPA, by surprise.
Every thoughtful person knew that Bulelani Ngcuka's statement that a
prime facie case against Zuma existed but was probably not winnable amounted to
a scurrilous defamation by a high justice official.
If the national director of public prosecutions has a
case, he should pursue it or not pursue it *2, or else shut up.
We didn't protest because we do not like Zuma, but Ngcuka
did an injustice and he should have answered for it. *3
Inasmuch as Thabo Mbeki is said to have interfered to expedite the Zuma
case, he seems to have done the reverse for Jackie Selebi, as Vusi Pikoli has
testified.
The Selebi matter, Travelgate, the gross attempts to tamper with evidence in the
Tony Yengeni drunk-driving case, and the foot dragging over the Robert McBride
affair show us very clearly that favours were done and influence can be peddled.
Mike Bowes, via e-mail
With acknowledgements to Mike Bowes and Sunday
Times.
*1 Nearly all, but not all.
I have been campaigning since August 2003 to have Maduna and Ngcuka prosecuted
for obstructing the course of justice.
If this was done at the volition of Mbeki, prosecute him as well.
The prima facie evidence is there.
Other than a pure criminal act, the damage done to the NPA, the rule of law and
the country as a whole is truly enormous.
Do it.
*2 Rubbish, if the national director of public prosecutions
has a case, he should pursue it - period.
If he doesn't have a case, he doesn't have a case - period.
If he doesn't have a case and he pursues it, this is criminal.
If he does have a case and he doesn't pursues it, this is criminal.
Do it.
*3 Ngcuka did an injustice and he should answer for it.
But who set up Ngcuka? He certainly did not do this of his own volition.
Almost surely, for there is indeed no other logic, Ngcuka did the bidding of
Mbeki and Maduna.
But this was to get Zuma off the hook in 2003.
There is no proof that Mbeki interfered with another NDPP to get Zuma back on
the hook in 2007 or yet another NDPP in 2007.
There is no proof and it does not follow.
Indeed if Mbeki wanted Zuma off the hook in 2003, why did he personally want him
back on the hook in 2005 and again in 2007.
He didn't.
It's a lie.
Zuma was charged in 2005 because the prosecutors and investigators of the
National Prosecuting Authority and Directorate of Special Operations were doing
their job.
They had had complaints from bona fide complainants (real people) and
investigated these complaints. They got real documentary evidence (real original
documents written and typed and printed on real paper) and real witnesses (real
people), they got this evidence tested in the High Court and the Supreme Court
of Appeal and they got the legal issues tested in the Constitutional Court and
so they got a real prima facie case.
They had no option but to prosecute Zuma and Thint, because otherwise their
conduct would be criminal.
Nothing has changed regarding this prima facie case.
The judgment of Judge Chris Nicholson does not change this prima facie case. It
is simply about procedure, indeed a simple procedure which is simple to cure,
with or without an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Unless a permanent stay of prosecution is granted and upheld right up to the
Constitutional Court, not to pursue this case would be criminal.
It is not simply a discretion of some functionary, because there is both a prima
facie case and it is entirely winnable - this is the law.
That there is both a prima facie case and that it is entirely winnable has been
proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, indeed the evidence has been proven to be
overwhelming.
"Don't Sacrifice SA Law over Zuma."