Now that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has set aside the controversial judgement of Judge Chris Nicholson, the ball is in Jacob Zuma’s court to take the voters into his confidence by answering the following questions:

What were the purposes of his trips to London and Mauritius with Schabir Shaik, because these trips were not sanctioned by the ANC and government? Why did he object to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) getting hold of Alain Thetard’s diary, which confirms a meeting between him (Zuma), Shaik and Thetard? Zuma also opposed an application by the NPA to investigate off-shore accounts in the United Kingdom.

Zuma must explain to the public why he failed to obey Nelson Mandela’s advice that he (Zuma) and the ANC distance themselves from Shaik.

The ANC president also failed to declare to the South African Revenue Service and Parliament the R4-million he received from Shaik. He must explain to the voters why he hid this loan or gift.

Last, Zuma has to explain to the public why he wants a permanent stay of prosecution if he is innocent. Is it not to his advantage to defend his innocence in court?

­ Phillip Mhlongo, Newlands West


Following the SCA judgement, the media and its armchair analysts suggest that the decision to recall [Thabo] Mbeki was incorrect or premature.

But on June 14 2005 Mbeki set the precedent when he said in Parliament: “I am fully conscious of the fact that the accused in the Schabir Schaik case have given notice of their intention to lodge an appeal. I am equally aware that a superior court may overturn the judgement handed down by Justice Squires. However, as president of the republic I have come to the conclusion that the circumstances dictate that in the interest of the honourable deputy president, the government, our young democratic system and our country, it would be best to release the Honourable Jacob Zuma from his responsibilities as deputy president of the republic and member of the Cabinet.”

Hence, the SCA judgement is insignificant as far as the recall of Mbeki is concerned. He created a precedent that came back to haunt him. Those who own newspapers should have the decency not to omit this information as they continue with their programme to discredit the ANC and its president.

­ Themba Phakathi, ANCYL member, eThekwini region


I am pleased that for the first time Jacob Zuma spoke loudly against corruption. He must now act decisively against it. Zuma must demonstrate immediately that the ANC is against corruption.

He must tell his side of his story about his relationship with Schabir Shaik, Alain Thetard, Vivian Reddy, Mabheleni Ntuli and Jurgen Kögl. He must publicly denounce the purchase of a R425 000 scanner by the KwaZulu-Natal department of health at R1,5-million, especially because of rumours that some of the R1-million overrun went into the ANC’s coffers.

Zuma must also instruct Sibusiso Ndebele to suspend KwaZulu-Natal provincial minister for health Peggy Nkonyeni. If the ANC is determined to remove Jackie Selebi before he is found guilty, the same determination is required in the case of Nkonyeni.

Come on, ANC ­ you are handicapped in the fight against corruption. A thief cannot catch another thief.

­ Langa Masondo, Pietermaritzburg


The recent judgement by the SCA in the Zuma matter is a breath of fresh air. Zuma has been dodging his day in court. The opportunity once again presents itself and it would be regrettable if he employs more delaying tactics to buy time until he becomes the country’s president, should the ANC win the elections.

The judgement also exposed the ANC for being petty by trying to settle political scores using state resources. Now that the Nicholson judgement they capitalised on has been overturned, the least they can do is apologise to Mbeki and his former Cabinet.

­ Nhlanhla Ndwandwe, Richards Bay

With acknowledgements to Mail and Guardian.