Our country and government is falling apart slowly, yet we are assured that there is no real issue or problem. Compared to our political situation ten years ago, I’d say it is indeed an issue. Our current situation is part of a link from a chain of events that started three years ago with the conviction of Schabir Shaik (Jacob Zuma’s financial adviser) for corruption and fraud. This led to the dismissal of Jacob Zuma as deputy president of South Africa in June 2005. Following the Shaik trial, Zuma was formally charged with corruption by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
When Zuma's supporters claim that the trial against him is a political trial it is this kind of trial to which they are referring: prosecuting someone merely because he is a political opponent. This is how Zuma is seen – not as a rapist or criminal but rather as a target.
Zuma’s daunting hurdle: a corruption investigation that dogged him for much of this decade. Instead of finishing Mr. Zuma’s political career, these legal issues reinstated it, making him a man who symbolized the alienation of those who felt the government was failing them. In the final decision, the judge not only set aside the case against Mr. Zuma on procedural grounds but also pointed toward what seemed to be a pattern of political meddling by Mr. Mbeki’s government.
National director of Public Prosecutions at the time Bulelani Ngcuka investigated both Zuma and the Chief Whip of the ANC, Tony Yengeni, after allegations of abuse of power were leveled against them. This indicated improper influence in the controversial arms deal. While Yengeni was found guilty, the case was dropped against Zuma. Ngcuka moved to private practice after criticism from the ANC over this incident.
In 2004, Zuma became a key figure mentioned in the Schabir Shaik trial. Shaik was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Judge Hilary Squires described the relationship between Zuma and Shaik as "mutually beneficial symbiosis". The media reported this as "A generally corrupt relationship", although this description does not appear in the court transcripts. After intense media speculation about his future, President Thabo Mbeki relieved Zuma of his duties as deputy president. Zuma then resigned as a Member of Parliament.
Zuma's legal team continued to delay proceedings and in spite of Zuma's claim that he desired the matter appear in court succeeded in making critical evidence unavailable to the court resulting in the prosecution making an application for postponement on the set date. As the prosecution was not ready the case was struck from the roll after the prosecution's application for a postponement was dismissed, however Zuma's legal team has been unsuccessful in its attempts to have the courts grant a permanent stay of proceedings (which would render Zuma immune to prosecution on the charges). Coupled with the fact that Schabir Shaik was found guilty of corruption and begun his sentence from 7 November 2006, the prosecution's case against Zuma appears to have gained a little more footing.
On 8 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the National Prosecuting Authority regarding appeals relating to various search and seizure exercises performed by the and turned down four appeals made by Zuma's defence team.
On 28 December 2007, the Scorpions served Zuma an indictment to stand trial in the High Court on various counts of racketeering, money laundering, corruption and fraud. Zuma appeared in court on 4 August 2008. The charges were believed to be linked to the $5bn arms deal by the South African government in 1999.
Should Jacob Zuma have been convicted of corruption and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, he would have not been able to run for election and subsequently would not be able to serve as President of the Republic of South Africa.
http://http//www.mg.co.za/article/2007-12-28-zuma-charged-with-corruption-fraud
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/28/southafrica
When Zuma's supporters claim that the trial against him is a political trial it is this kind of trial to which they are referring: prosecuting someone merely because he is a political opponent. This is how Zuma is seen – not as a rapist or criminal but rather as a target.
Zuma’s daunting hurdle: a corruption investigation that dogged him for much of this decade. Instead of finishing Mr. Zuma’s political career, these legal issues reinstated it, making him a man who symbolized the alienation of those who felt the government was failing them. In the final decision, the judge not only set aside the case against Mr. Zuma on procedural grounds but also pointed toward what seemed to be a pattern of political meddling by Mr. Mbeki’s government.
National director of Public Prosecutions at the time Bulelani Ngcuka investigated both Zuma and the Chief Whip of the ANC, Tony Yengeni, after allegations of abuse of power were leveled against them. This indicated improper influence in the controversial arms deal. While Yengeni was found guilty, the case was dropped against Zuma. Ngcuka moved to private practice after criticism from the ANC over this incident.
In 2004, Zuma became a key figure mentioned in the Schabir Shaik trial. Shaik was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Judge Hilary Squires described the relationship between Zuma and Shaik as "mutually beneficial symbiosis". The media reported this as "A generally corrupt relationship", although this description does not appear in the court transcripts. After intense media speculation about his future, President Thabo Mbeki relieved Zuma of his duties as deputy president. Zuma then resigned as a Member of Parliament.
Zuma's legal team continued to delay proceedings and in spite of Zuma's claim that he desired the matter appear in court succeeded in making critical evidence unavailable to the court resulting in the prosecution making an application for postponement on the set date. As the prosecution was not ready the case was struck from the roll after the prosecution's application for a postponement was dismissed, however Zuma's legal team has been unsuccessful in its attempts to have the courts grant a permanent stay of proceedings (which would render Zuma immune to prosecution on the charges). Coupled with the fact that Schabir Shaik was found guilty of corruption and begun his sentence from 7 November 2006, the prosecution's case against Zuma appears to have gained a little more footing.
On 8 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the National Prosecuting Authority regarding appeals relating to various search and seizure exercises performed by the and turned down four appeals made by Zuma's defence team.
On 28 December 2007, the Scorpions served Zuma an indictment to stand trial in the High Court on various counts of racketeering, money laundering, corruption and fraud. Zuma appeared in court on 4 August 2008. The charges were believed to be linked to the $5bn arms deal by the South African government in 1999.
Should Jacob Zuma have been convicted of corruption and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, he would have not been able to run for election and subsequently would not be able to serve as President of the Republic of South Africa.
http://http//www.mg.co.za/article/2007-12-28-zuma-charged-with-corruption-fraud
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/28/southafrica
No comments:
Post a Comment