During the past months journalists have asked me many questions about the prosecution (or as I prefer to say: persecution *2) of Jacob Zuma, the president of the ANC, and what the party's position is.

It is my impression that there is considerable (often deliberate) confusion about why the ANC stands firmly behind its president, and why there is no doubt that the ANC will enter the 2009 elections with Zuma as its presidential candidate.

Sadly, I have to conclude there are in many instances such strong prejudices against Zuma among certain journalists that there is deliberate intent not to correctly reflect the answers that I, and other ANC members, have given time after time.

Whatever the situation, it is seldom that I read the answers that I have provided *3 reported without being distorted in a manner that is prejudicial to the ANC and to our president.

Not only is a disservice being done to the ANC and Zuma, but also to the general public, who have a right to expect to be fairly and correctly informed *4.

I have therefore gone back to my notes about the many interviews that I have given about this matter and extracted seven of the most frequently asked questions and the answers that I have provided.

I sincerely hope that this will help to clarify some of the important issues:

Why does Zuma not step aside until his court case is over?

As a citizen, Zuma is presumed to be innocent. Because Zuma is standing for the office of the president does not change this fundamental right.

Democracy demands that any person has a fundamental right to accept a nomination for the candidacy to any office and the ANC, in terms of the Constitution, is entitled to promote this nomination.

Judge Harms has cleared [former president Thabo] Mbeki of political interference. Why is the ANC insisting that there was interference?

Harms did not clear former president Mbeki or anyone else of political interference. All he said was that on the basis of the evidence available to him in the court papers he could not decide whether there was political interference or not.

There is an established pattern of meddling in the national prosecuting authority's (NPA's) work. [Vusi] Pikoli, [the former NPA boss], stated under oath that he had experienced political interference in the [suspended police chief Jackie] Selebi case.

On appeal, the High Court found that there was political interference in the [former ANC chief whip Tony] Yengeni trial.

All evidence in the Zuma case points to a persistent interference by politicians in the work of the NPA. The current acting national director of public prosecutions publicly admitted that the Zuma trial is a political trial.

It is the state's duty to dispel any possible notion that there may be political interference - it is not for an accused to prove political interference. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

Why does the ANC continue to state that there is a persistent violation of Zuma's rights?

Judges [Herbert] Msimang and [Chris] Nicholson both found that there was a violation of his rights, based on the history of this matter. The Harms judgment did not deal with this issue.

The public protector confirmed the persistent violation of Zuma's rights in his 2003 report to Parliament. The report stands undisputed by the NPA.

Why has Zuma delayed his appearance in court?

The facts show that he has not delayed proceedings. The prosecution commenced in 2001 and in 2003 the NPA chose not to prosecute. Because it was publicly announced that he was not going to be prosecuted, Zuma has led the life of an innocent citizen.

The first time that a judgment was delivered supporting an indictment by the NPA was the Harms judgment in January 2009.

Why does Zuma say that his right to a speedy trial has been abused, if he himself is delaying the trial by bringing a number of pretrial applications?

It is disputed that Zuma has delayed the trial for the following reasons:

All the applications by Zuma were brought in opposition to the proceedings commenced by the NPA, that is, the application for a warrant to conduct search and seizure and to the application in Mauritius.

None of Zuma's applications were as a result of his own initiative, but rather in defence of applications brought by the state.

Zuma brought his first application in October 2005, four years after the NPA investigation of Zuma commenced. This application was to oppose the search and seizures and the Durban High Court ruled in his favour, illustrating that Zuma was correct to oppose the state's search and seizures.

What evidence is there that Zuma is a victim of a politically motivated trial?

Zuma lodged an official complaint with the public protector regarding the fact that the NPA had infringed his constitutional right to human dignity, which caused him to be improperly prejudiced, and for acting in an unfair and improper manner.

The public protector stated in his findings that: "Neither the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, nor the NPA Act and the prosecution policy provide for a public statement regarding a person's apparent but not proveable guilt. To the contrary, these provisions prohibit inappropriate media statements and unfair conduct by prosecutors."

The public protector further found that the minister of justice [Penuell Maduna] and the national director of public prosecutions [Bulelani Ngcuka] failed to comply with their constitutional duty to co-operate with the public protector in the investigation of Zuma's complaints. The public protector presented his findings, that Zuma's rights had been severely prejudiced by the NPA, to Parliament on February 21 2007. Parliament failed to act on these findings and therefore failed to protect Zuma's rights. The public protector's findings that Zuma's rights had been abused, Parliament's failure to protect Zuma's rights and Penuell Maduna and Bulelani Ngcuka's failure to co-operate with the public protector are strong indications of a political motive to prosecute Zuma without basing the prosecution on merit.

Why is Zuma entitled to bring an application for an order of permanent stay of proceedings?

The abuse in the prosecuting process is against the presumption of innocence;

the prosecution has been pending since 2001;

the indictment has been amended in several substantial respects;

the "conviction" of Zuma in his absence during the [Shabir] Shaik trial;

the principle of "justice delayed is justice denied" applies; and

applications for permanent stay of proceedings [are] particularly important since the introduction of the South African Constitution.

Such applications are not rare, and they are the result of many malicious prosecutions by the NPA and/or as a result of the incompetence of the NPA. Since the adoption of the Constitution there have been a number applications for a permanent stay of proceedings or to strike cases from the court roll.

Dr Carl Niehaus is the ANC's national spokesperson *1