Political interference in judicial process
Steve Hayes
By Michael Hamlyn, I-Net Bridge Published:Sep 12, 2008
In her reaction to the Zuma judgment in Pietermaritzburg, the leader of the
Independent Democrats (ID), Patricia de Lille, drew attention to what the
judge had to say about political interference in the case.
She noted Judge Chris Nicholson blamed "blatant political interference by
President Mbeki and cabinet members in the NPA process and the timing of
charging Zuma".
De Lille, who was named by the judge as one of the early whistleblowers
against corruption in the multi-billion rand arms deal said: "The ID views
this as a shocking indictment on Mbeki and his cabinet and lends further
weight to the ID’s call for a vote of no confidence in the president and the
cabinet, who must take collective responsibility for this entire debacle."
She called on the ANC to reconsider the ID’s motion of no confidence in Mbeki
and his cabinet and place it once more on the agenda of Parliament.
"The judgment is also a lesson to the ANC about the massive importance of
separating the party from the state," said De Lille. "Something the ANC has so
far failed to do."
She also called for Zuma to face the music and clear his name regardless of
the technical findings by the Judge.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=842299
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Bob Dubery
> ID urges no confidence in Mbeki
> By Michael Hamlyn, I-Net Bridge Published:Sep 12, 2008
>
> In her reaction to the Zuma judgment in Pietermaritzburg, the leader of the
> Independent Democrats (ID), Patricia de Lille, drew attention to what the
> judge had to say about political interference in the case.
>
> She noted Judge Chris Nicholson blamed "blatant political interference by
> President Mbeki and cabinet members in the NPA process and the timing of
> charging Zuma".
>
> De Lille, who was named by the judge as one of the early whistleblowers
> against corruption in the multi-billion rand arms deal said: "The ID views
> this as a shocking indictment on Mbeki and his cabinet and lends further
> weight to the ID’s call for a vote of no confidence in the president and the
> cabinet, who must take collective responsibility for this entire debacle."
>
> She called on the ANC to reconsider the ID’s motion of no confidence in Mbeki
> and his cabinet and place it once more on the agenda of Parliament.
>
> "The judgment is also a lesson to the ANC about the massive importance of
> separating the party from the state," said De Lille. "Something the ANC has so
> far failed to do."
>
> She also called for Zuma to face the music and clear his name regardless of
> the technical findings by the Judge.
Personally I wish De Lille would actually deliver on something for a
change. She's been making insinuations, often under the protection of
parliamentary privilege, for years now but has never actually offered
any kind of evidence. If she knows so much, can't she prove some of
it?
The interesting implication of Nicholson's findings is that JZ might
actually have been right. It looks like the case against him WAS
politically motivated .It rather looks like Mbeki was trying to
discredit Zuma as part of a plan to continue to lead the ANC. I don't
know about y'all, but I used to give a little sneer every time JZ
started complaining about how he was being persecuted as part of a
political game, but it looks like there was some substance to his
claims.
I don't though agree that this means Shabir Sheik should be pardoned.
The verdict against him was as proper and as sound as this more recent
verdict. It is quite possible for Shaik to be guilty and for Zuma to
be innocent, so this let-off does not invalidate the verdict reached
by Judge Squires.
ProfQ
> I don't though agree that this means Shabir Sheik should be pardoned.
> The verdict against him was as proper and as sound as this more recent
> verdict. It is quite possible for Shaik to be guilty and for Zuma to
> be innocent, so this let-off does not invalidate the verdict reached
> by Judge Squires.
And I do not agree that Shabir Shaik is guity and Zooma is innocent. JZ
is more guilty than Shaik, and ought to be jailed for his complicity and
guilt. I feel Judge Squires was pressurized into his decision to avoid a
war. It was more a political decision than a wise legal one. Zooma is
guilty and that's that. He is utterly corrupt, insatiably greedy, and
has pulled the wool over the eyes of his supporters.
Bodie
news:gajme6$f94$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
I agree.
The honorable judge I think, had no desire to be "smashed" by malema and his
crowd of rowdies.
But to explain this to the ANC supporters is like waving the proverbial "red
flag at a bull"
They will yet come to rue the coming JZ era.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > I don't though agree that this means Shabir Sheik should be pardoned.
> > The verdict against him was as proper and as sound as this more recent
> > verdict. It is quite possible for Shaik to be guilty and for Zuma to
> > be innocent, so this let-off does not invalidate the verdict reached
> > by Judge Squires.
>
> And I do not agree that Shabir Shaik is guity and Zooma is innocent.
law. Well the law says that in this country anybody is innocent until
proven guilty to the necessary standard of proof in a court of law.
I think that's what we would all expect, indeed DEMAND for ourselves,
and to want it another way for JZ is to want one law for ourselves and
another for somebody else.
I thought the Shaik verdict posed questions that should be answered,
but apart from the fact that Zuma wasn't on trial, I didn't see
anything in the verdict that showed that he MUST be corrupt. It's
clear that Shaik was up to something dodgy, it was clear (in fact no
even contested) that Shaik had given Zuma money. What wasn't shown was
that Zuma did or was expected to do anything illegal or unethical in
return.
What happened on Friday surprised the heck out of me, but I can't
argue with it. Zuma's charging was not only procedurally incorrect,
but there was, as he had repeatedly claimed, interference in the
judicial process to further the political ambitions of others. It's
one thing to hear that from the accused, quite another to hear it from
a high court judge who, in presenting his findings, not only repeated
that claim but substantiated it too.
JZ
> is more guilty than Shaik, and ought to be jailed for his complicity and
> guilt. I feel Judge Squires was pressurized into his decision to avoid a
> war. It was more a political decision than a wise legal one.
Squires presided over the trial of Shabir Shaik. You don't have to be
a legal genius to know that if Shaik alone was charged and Shaik alone
was on trial then a judge passing sentence against anybody else was
acting most improperly.
Indeed if Squires had made a verdict about anybody other than Shabir
Sheik then THAT would have been a good reason to leave the country.
In both cases the presiding judge produced a detailed finding showing
how they came to their conclusions, so it's hard to claim that they
were coerced. Of course, being judges they have to act according to
law, not according to public opinion. It doesn't help that as regards
the Shaik case there was a rather severe lack of rigour by the press
that resulted in the Business Day (usually a more thorough publication
than most in this country) falsely attributing the "generally corrupt"
sentence to Judge Squires in his verdict (it was the prosecutor in his
summing up) and the rest of the press getting in on the act without
bother checking to read the transcription of the verdict that, you'd
be entitled to think, they'd just sat through and paid attention to.
> Zooma is
> guilty and that's that. He is utterly corrupt, insatiably greedy, and
> has pulled the wool over the eyes of his supporters.
Really? The guy we should all be pissed off with at present is Mbeki.
It's against the odds for me personally, but there's no getting away
from it - he tried to use the NPA in pursuit of his own ambitions.
Bob Dubery
And there's the problem. Too many people, on both ends of the
political spectrum, are allowing the facts to be overriden by their
own prejudices. The matter was laid before a judge, the judge gave a
considered, detailed finding showing how he reached his conclusions.
Anybody who was making noises about respecting the independence of the
judiciary should respect this verdict. Not because it went the way
they wanted it to, but because it was proper and thorough and reached
without interference. It doesn't matter whether or not the judge was
concerned about his safety, you can't manufacture the reasoning behind
that verdict.