Give us an answer, NPA

In the event of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) electing to drop all charges against ANC president Jacob Zuma and thereafter refusing to furnish the basis therefore, then the loss of credibility suffered by Correctional Services in terms of the Schabir Shaik medical parole and Carl Niehaus as a result of his outing as a fraudster will seem like footling by comparison. Moreover the actual reasons behind the decision, which will undoubtedly have some semblance of logic, will be replaced by the ugliest and sexiest rumours doing the rounds which will then evolve into a perceived truth that should the NPA ever decide to come clean they will never be able to overcome.

People will always believe the worst and if the truth is legally and morally sound — and trust me the perception of people on why it is being done is going to raise one horror story after another — it will beg the question why, if the truth is so compelling, the NPA didn’t simply raise it from the start. That is the long-term prognosis, the short term is going to be far nastier.

If the NPA do not explain why they are dropping the charges (if that is the case) they will face inter alia the following questions:

Was the decision taken on legal or political grounds?

If it was done on political grounds it will be all the proof that the opposition parties will ever need to confirm that the ruling party is interfering in and utilising state institutions for their own ends. If it was done based on legal grounds people will want to know why they are only accepting them now, why the country was subjected to this dangerous episode in its history if that is the case and when the NPA did bring the case, which they are now dropping, isn’t this conclusive proof that the NPA was being used for political purposes? (Zuma conspiracy theory). Of course by not clarifying whether the decision was taken based upon legal or political grounds the NPA will be hung out to dry on both (and everything else people can think of).

Why shouldn’t other accused be entitled to speculate on the basis for dropping the charges and ask the courts to be treated equally before the law?

We’ve just had the lawyers of Clive Derby-Lewis suggesting that the denial of parole for their client is unfair in light of what happened to Shaik. What therefore, for example, is stopping Jackie Selebi from now claiming that he too was the victim of a political conspiracy, that his trial is not in the interests of South Africa and that if the NPA are incapable of winning the Zuma case — a slam dunk in comparison to his — then they have absolutely no prospects of success in his own case?

On what basis, in light of Shaik and then Zuma, can the government, Correctional Services and the NPA rely to prove that the citizens of South Africa are treated equally?

The message is clear there is one set of rules for the wealthy and powerful and another for the rest of the country. Coming to a court near you soon: “Your Worship my client would humbly request the court to clarify with the prosecutor how the corruption charges in the Zuma case differ from his own — if anything these are mild in comparison — and flowing therefrom whether the state is serious about proceeding with these charges”. I’d hate to be a control prosecutor down at the magistrate’s courts. Every day there’ll be a queue of attorneys and their clients backing out of the building all wanting to make representations.

The above representing a mere smattering of the problems that will arise if the NPA fail to furnish the reasons for their decision. You may also wish to read the views of my favourite blogger Professor Pierre de Vos on this topic.

Just to be absolutely clear on the issue under discussion: I am not debating whether the NPA should or shouldn’t drop the charges. The issue here is what if they do drop them and then refuse to set out the grounds upon which they based their decision. To my mind this would be insane because if they furnish their reasoning they will be hammered — and then some — for that alone. Of course there will be those raising unrelated issues but that doesn’t detract from the central thread that the NPA can stand firm on. Give no reasons and the NPA will be bombarded on every possible permutation imaginable and in respect of which they will find themselves coming under more and more pressure every day. When they eventually do decide to come clean — and they will — nobody will believe a word of what they are saying.

In terms of Zuma my position has been as follows: I was of the view, and repeatedly blogged on it here, that a political solution should have been reached long ago in order to spare the criminal justice system and our country the damage it is currently experiencing. I suggested that the opposition led by the Democratic Alliance representing the country use the negotiations for a political solution to trade for concessions to further entrench press freedom and the like in our Constitution in return for a walk on Zuma. This did not find any support whatsoever.

This brought us to the verge of elections and a candidate for president facing corruption and allied charges. As South Africa is the regional power and not a banana republic and in view of the fact that this would result in our president potentially facing a criminal trial while running our country I called for Zuma to stand down until this issue is resolved.

Accordingly if the charges are withdrawn I for one will be relieved on the part of the country and await the shit storm that will be unleashed in the press and among the opposition for the decision to withdraw the charges (if this should be the case).

As always you may scroll back to verify the above.