On the eve of Jacob Zuma's inauguration as South African President, the
judge whose decision was used in dropping corruption charges against the ANC
president has said that the country's chief prosecutor made a mistake in law.
Judge Conrad Seagroatt said this in new comments to independent news website
Grubstreet, which had earlier tracked the
judge down and asked for his opinion on the use of his ruling when acting head
of the National Prosecuting Authority Mokotedi Mpshe last month controversially
dropped a corruption prosecution against Zuma.
The now-retired Hong Kong judge, Conrad Seagroatt, having seen the full text of
Mpshe's decision, has now told Grubstreet that Mpshe was wrong to use his
judgment to justify dropping the charges against Zuma.
Grubstreet reports
that Seagrott said Mpshe should have allowed the
case to go to trial.
Seagrott is quoted as saying: "It is very
strongly arguable that he should have let the trial process begin before
a judge, leaving the aspect which seems to have dominated his proper role as the
prosecutor (the old adage being a 'prosecutors'
job is to prosecute) to be determined by the judge with [Mpshe] being
entirely candid (as he should be) as to
the conduct of the investigative and prosecuting agencies. It is easy from my
position in the U.K. (or Hong Kong) to be critical of Mpshe's statement but
being as objective as I can, he really did not
get to grips with the situation and seems to have made
selective use of my judgement to
try and put some beef into a statement
which is rather short on substance *3."
In Mpshe's original statement, Seagroatt's decision was not acknowledged by
Mpshe - the apparent plagiarism was revealed by James Myburgh of Politicsweb -
and he faced accusations of plagiarism, which were brushed aside by his
spokesperson.
Grubstreet added that NPA spokesperson Tlali Tlali said the NPA did not wish to
comment on the matter as it is going to the High Court. The Democratic Alliance
has made an urgent application for a review and setting aside of the NPA's
decision not to prosecute Jacob Zuma.
With acknowledgements to Cape Times.
*1The NDPP is another Mbeki
stooge *2 who needed to get Zuma off the hook in order to get his principle off
the hook.
So being candid is the last of the priorities.
Indeed Mpshe and tother stooge Wofmeyer decided not to cite the Seagroatt
judgment for two reasons :
it was overturned on appeal;
it came from the Accused's representations researched by "Doctor of Law"
Paul Ngobeni.
*2Recruited after a great performance in being charged by
the Bar Council with misconduct and under threat of being struck off the roll.
The kind of perfect recruit as a sleeper.
*3The learned judge errs gracefully on the side of litotes.
There was no substance at all.
There was certainly no balance regarding the right of the public and of the
complainant.
It was certainly one of the most pathetic spectacles of a convolution of justice
ever seen anywhere, anytime in the First, Second or Third Worlds.
The only other such jurisprudential spectacle was the press conference held on
23 august 2003 by Jackasses NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka and Minister of Justice Penuell
Maduna where they let Zuma go the first time.
There they used the opinion of an unnamed "senior counsel" to back they
decision. I doubt that this person ever existed.
This time the new NDPP uses an out-of-jurisdiction, overturned-on-appeal
judgment.
The NDPP in between got kicked out for being unfit for the position.
What a run the NPA has had since its only very recent beginning.