Jacob Zuma must not escape prosecution

In 2005 the President of the Republic Thabo Mbeki kicked his deputy Jacobus Zuma to curb. We are all knowledgeable of the circumstances that led to an unceremonious departure of then Deputy President of the Republic; and the shenanigans that followed such a momentous occurrence.

Following the much lauded dismissal of the deputy president, the then ANC secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe made this statement, “The ANC accepts and supports the decision of President Thabo Mbeki to release Deputy President Jacob Zuma from his duties in government following due consideration of the ruling in the Shaik trial.” It is now mind boggling how the ANC has had a sudden change of heart.

The disgraced former deputy president of the Republic said, “My conscience is clear … I have not committed any crime against the state or the people of South Africa. I need to be given the opportunity to tell my side of the story and bring finality to these accusations and speculations.”

We all agree that it would not be in Jacob Zuma’s best interest when such damning accusations of corruption remain untested before the courts. When the NPA heeded his desire to clear his name, Jacob Zuma reneged on his word to South Africans to tell them “his side of the story” and began to employ every trick in the law book with remorseless consistency to have charges against him being deemed unconstitutional and invalid. There has been an organised attempt by his loyalists to turn a criminal case into a political case. Even the accused himself has failed to provide and admitted to possessing no evidence to support such absurd claims that such charges against him are politically driven.

“I am informed that some within our broad movement … are convinced that as president of the ANC and the republic, I occupy the leading position in the political onslaught against Deputy President Zuma … I strongly suggest that the alliance should immediately constitute a commission of inquiry to establish the truth or otherwise of the allegation that members of the ANC … have been and are involved in a conspiracy targeted at marginalising or destroying Deputy President Zuma … Should such a conspiracy exist, we must unite the entirety of our movement in a determined offensive to defeat it,” wrote President Mbeki. Jacob Zuma’s loyal supporters within the tripartite alliance scoffed off the suggestion to investigate these wild conspiracy claims.

It appears that within the ANC, when certain elements are disgruntled by the manner of your conduct, they will resort to making ridiculous accusation against you. Bulelani Ngcuka was said to have been an apartheid collaborator following his relentless pursuit of dubious ANC bigwigs to bring them to justice. It is a worrying trend that is indicative of the intolerance and disrespect of the rule of law.

There is a concerted drive by Jacob Zuma loyalists to subvert justice; there are even absurd calls for amnesty to be granted to the President of the ANC in order that he may assume the starring role in the soapie called the government. The notion that he may not get a fair trial is beyond preposterous by reason of the delay in the administration of justice. The NPA cannot be alleged to have prevented the trial to begin without unreasonable delay. It is the accused himself who is causing unreasonable delay of his trial.

On Shabir Shaik’s appeal of his judgment, the Constitutional Court Judge Kate O’Regan concluded that the state had established, as a matter of fact, that both Shaik and the Nkobi Holdings benefited as a result of the relationship that existed between Zuma and Shaik. This is a serious conclusion by a Constitutional Court judge that cannot be assumed to be untrue by the mere presumption of innocence until proven guilty principle.

Jacob Zuma supporters may be inclined to argue that their leader was tried in absentia and is prejudiced by this judgment; but such a bizarre argument, like a bottomless bucket, cannot hold water as we have impartial and competent courts as well as independent judges who can preside over this case. Without any legal knowledge, I have no doubt that any court will have to interrogate the validity of charges and admissibility of evidence presented before it and on acceptance of the validity of charges and admissibility of evidence, should be in a position to pronounce the verdict after both arguments from the prosecution and defence have been heard.

Jacob Zuma must stop wasting state resources by playing cat and mouse with the courts. As taxpayers we cannot and we should not continue funding his hide and seek games. It is in his interest and the interest of the public that he presents himself before the courts and faces prosecution. No one is amused by the uncertainty and the prospect of having a new president of the Republic in 2009 who has a dark cloud over his head.