Zuma and Selebi conundrums

South Africans have every right to look to the government for an explanation of their handling of the Scorpions and Vusi Pikoli disbandment and dismissal. In both cases the impression that is left is that, regardless of the feelings of the citizens of this country and the findings of the commissions into both issues, the decision had been taken and that is the end of that.

Wholly unacceptable conduct, which has been covered in detail on this site.

Government in turn has every right to be bemused by the conduct of South Africans when it comes to the issue of the trials of ANC president Jacob Zuma and suspended police commissioner Jackie Selebi. In both cases the public has allowed the media and gossip to dictate the “outcomes” rather than await the decisions of their respective courts.

Starting with Zuma, the ANC president is well within his rights to utilise every mechanism within the law to fight his case. On the other hand, as I have repeatedly pointed out to Zuma supporters, the National Prosecuting Authority is obliged to pursue a prima facie case to conclusion unless the courts intervene, as we saw in the Pietermaritzburg courts with Judge Nicholson, or a political solution is achieved.

Notwithstanding, in accordance with our laws, and until there is an amendment thereto, Zuma is innocent until proven guilty. At present and until we know the outcome of the NPA’s appeal he is not being charged with anything. However, if the appeal succeeds and he is charged, then he is entitled to employ whatever tactics are available to him, within the law, to extricate himself from that position.

Moreover, he remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and should be treated as such.

It is not up to politicians, the media or the public to pronounce him guilty until proven innocent. In one case we even had a young lady suggesting that, should Zuma be elected, rape would be legalised even though he had been acquitted of that charge. The fact of the matter is that it is up to a court of law to decide on that question, if the matter is brought before it, and not left up to the public, thank all things holy, to decide such issues.

When the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals on the NPA appeal is made public shortly, try to accept the outcome without calling the NPA traitors, for doing their jobs, if it goes in their favour. In addition, avoid pre-judging Zuma guilty if the charges are reinstated. No matter the decision of that court, this does not make Zuma guilty — that question would fall to the judge of the trial court.

Accordingly, just as we expected the government to listen to our judiciary on Pikoli and the Scorpions, try to adopt the same approach in the matter of Zuma. Until a trial court finds him guilty he is innocent – deal with it as such.

The situation is far worse in the case of Selebi.

Trial by public and the media seems to have overtaken this one completely. “Selebi is ‘guilty’ but let’s have a trial anyway” seems to be the way that this matter is being dealt with in the public arena. Any piece of information or affidavit is thrust before us and declared to be proof of guilt.

If, heaven forbid, we ever decide to switch to a system along those lines then just call me judge, jury and executioner, because in my filing cabinets and among my mates and colleagues we have tons of affidavits and statements made against just about anyone of substance in the country. So if anyone annoys us, then based upon the examples set by the media itself, why don’t we just start putting affidavits into the public domain and leave it to the “victims”, because that is what they will be, to prove themselves innocent?

The reasons we have courts to decide on the innocence and guilt of people, based upon legally acceptable evidence, is to avoid leaving it up to the emotional and unqualified to decide issues which have a material impact on people’s lives. If you would like to change that then by all means lobby for a system of “guilty until proven innocent”, and we can start off by incarcerating everyone charged by the state until such time as a trial proves them innocent.

When, for example, you get pulled over for drunk driving, you can spend the next 18 months in jail waiting for a court to find you innocent.

It is hypocritical for us to condemn the government for ignoring the judiciary and criminal justice system in respect of Pikoli and the Scorpions and then do the same thing when it comes to Zuma and Selebi. The system says “innocent until proven guilty”: either accept that and conduct yourself accordingly or change the system. If Zuma and Selebi use the legal system to best advantage, that is the system that we as South Africans have provided.

Live with it or lobby for it to be changed but, while it is there, it is what stands between us and anarchy.

In terms of the issue of Selebi’s continued suspension (without sacking):

The government is faced with serious allegations against the most senior police officer in the country. In order to sack him while he is under contract, prior to a court of law deciding upon his innocence or guilt, the government would need to convene an inquiry based upon a loss of confidence in his ability.

Dear mother of all things holy … I don’t care what else they do but if they convene another inquiry South Africa will have the first reported case of National Morning Sickness – there won’t be enough people to clean up the vomit.

In the interest of all South Africans a compromise needs to be reached with Selebi’s legal team prior to the trial, which would take into consideration the verdict or a collapse of trial, if that be the case, and proceed from there with regard to the appointment of commissioner. That would allow the parties to negotiate on Selebi’s contract as well as provide for future contingencies such as a guilty verdict or no trial being proceeded with.

Another horrendously expensive, go-nowhere inquiry will cost umpteen times more than any deal reached in terms of an interim arrangement and at least with the deal the chances are everyone will adhere to it.

If we want the rule of law, respect for the criminal justice system and the judiciary, then it has to apply as much in the cases of Zuma and Selebi as it does with Pikoli and the Scorpions. This is why politicians should not criticise judges, political parties should desist from making inflammatory remarks about the NPA and the media should refrain from pre-judging people’s guilt or innocence.

That is why it is dangerous to ignore the findings of judicial inquiries like Ginwala and Khampepe because when you want to be dealt with and respected by people based upon the law, and the rights flowing therefrom, then undermining the very system that upholds it can prove fatal.

That goes for the public and the media as much as the politicians.

Let the courts decide who is guilty or not and until such time treat people as the law provides –innocent until proven guilty.

While we’re on the subject of not judging people, may I just wish JZ and his bride mazeltov on their forthcoming marriage. I’m the last person to decide on culture issues save to observe that any man who can deal with five mother-in-laws will find running a country a piece of cake.