To prosecute a president is to embarrass the country

In 1892, Rudyard Kipling lamented the gulf of understanding between the British and the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent in his book Barrack-Room Ballads. He said: “Oh, East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.” Never before had I imagined myself to be of the same opinion as Julius Malema, leader of the ANC kindergarten league. Alas, revelation is at hand. Malema has spoken and I ashamedly concur.

Malema told Jacob Zuma sympathisers in Pietermaritzburg, after the high court set the date for Zuma’s legal adventures, that prosecuting the president of the country would embarrass the nation. He said: “When Zuma comes back to court in August he will come back as the president of this country and the judges will have to address him as the president … I just want to ask those who are behind this case if they would be proud to prosecute their own president and embarrass their own country.”

It’s common knowledge that the president of the republic is tasked with an arduous undertaking imposed on him by the will and often desperation of the people. Ever present is the risk of ushering into levers of power those who are to advance the nefarious ends of their political party, cronies and not the national good. Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu implored us not to elect a person of such character and integrity that would be an embarrassment to the nation.

Though it would be shameful to have a president in office that is being prosecuted, it is mischievous of the ANC to claim his prosecution should be subverted because they believe it is not in the public interest. What does the ANC mean when it says his prosecution is not in the public interest? Will the general welfare of the nation be compromised? I doubt it will. Will there be unrest and violence as a result of Zuma finally having his day in court?

The ruling party contends that “Zuma’s rights to a fair trial have been severely infringed” and that “political meddling is at the heart of this case”. The ANC promises to exhaust all legal avenues. An accused can only be vindicated through being acquitted in the court of law of charges levelled against him. The allegations of “political meddling” have to date not been proven by the ANC nor by Zuma. His lawyer, Michael Hulley, filed papers with the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal the Supreme Court judgement, which reinstated corruption charges against his client. Hulley still mentions “political meddling” in his application without providing evidence.

Hulley states in the court papers: “Mr Zuma’s insistence on political motives influencing the decision-making of the NPA, and especially the NDPP, [is] evidenced by the timing and content of his dismissal by his political rival President Mbeki and the Pikoli decision. They were in a bitter political battle at this time for the political leadership of the country … some short time after Mr Zuma wins the political leadership of the ANC in Polokwane in mid-December, Mpshe then decides to prosecute him and announces this to the world by charging him on December 28 2007.”

When justifying his decision not to step aside pending the finalisation of this trial, Zuma said: “What has happened to me is that certain people have thrown this dark cloud to me with the aim of demonising me. So if I step aside, a bad precedent will be created. People will know that if you hate somebody, you just throw a dark cloud and it is the end of the story … I am not going to step aside simply because I have not been found guilty by any court of law. I respect the Constitution and I understand it.”

Zuma has himself chosen to throw a dark cloud over those he accuses of “political meddling” demonising them and casting them as conspirators who are unwavering in violating his constitutional rights without providing the court with evidence for the charges to be dismissed. He is setting a bad precedent that when accused of crime, a person need only claim a conspiracy and underhandedness behind possible charges. Zuma and the ANC fail to comprehend that a public official stepping down on such serious allegations is neither an admission of guilt nor a concession of defeat against those you believe to be persecuting you. In the same manner that he agreed to his dismissal as deputy president of the country he should withdraw himself from the running of the presidency.

To elect a president is to call upon an individual of unquestionable standing. Julius is right, we must not embarrass our own country.