EARLIER this year I read an article quoting Senzo Mchunu, premier of KwaZulu-Natal and Zuma loyalist, predicting that when the infamous “spy tapes” were eventually released, South Africa would learn that “there is nothing (in them) after all”.
Mchunu was clearly confident that this would be good news for President Jacob Zuma, who would then be off the hook on corruption charges, yet again.
The premier may well be right that “there is nothing” in the tapes “after all”.
This is, quite simply, the most important review case in the 20 year history of our democracy.
If, as we suspect, the charges were withdrawn for political reasons, the NPA will be shown to have subverted the core constitutional principle it is mandated to defend: equality of all before the law.
If powerful politicians are able to manipulate the instruments of our criminal justice system to protect themselves and persecute their opponents, South Africa is on a short-cut to becoming a criminal state, where no-one can rely on the protection of the law, and no president need fear accountability to the law.
So far, this case has already shown how far we have shrunk from the constitutional ideal.
The NPA has, in fact, failed to implement two court orders, including one from the Supreme Court of Appeal, to hand over the “reduced record” including the “spy tapes”. They allowed Zuma’s lawyers to interdict them in order to prevent compliance, on the grounds that the entire record was “privileged”.
Zuma’s advocate has now conceded it is not. But, actually, this was obvious from the beginning. Just consider this simple timeline.
The “tapes” were allegedly recorded in conversations between Ngcuka and McCarthy between December 12 and 13 2007, when they apparently discussed the timing of reinstating the corruption charges against Zuma.
The ANC’s Polokwane elective conference was held from December 16 to 20, in which Zuma decisively defeated former president Thabo Mbeki in the election for the leadership of the ANC.
Mpshe, acting as NDPP, reinstituted the charges on December 27 2007, long before he became aware of the telephone conversations between Ngcuka and McCarthy.
Given this sequence of events, it makes absolutely no sense for Mpshe to argue that the content of the telephone conversations influenced his decision (or the timing) to re-institute charges.
Mpshe might, conceivably, have been able to make such a case if, for example, he had been persuaded to re-institute the charges before Polokwane, and if Zuma had been defeated in the leadership election as a result. But they weren’t and he wasn’t, so Mpshe’s stated reasons for dropping the charges make no sense.
And, it was Mpshe who reinstituted the charges.
By subsequently stating there was a “political motive” behind this, is he saying he allowed himself to be politically influenced to charge Zuma? That would be self-incrimination of breathtaking proportions.
Mpshe has conceded that the charges had “substantive merit” and that he was unaware of the conversations between Ngcuka and McCarthy. So how could he later claim the content of these conversations had influenced his decision to re-institute charges?
I pity the scriptwriters who may one day have to write a believable screenplay for this movie.
And we are only nearing the end of the beginning of this incredible saga.
The bulk of the drama still lies ahead.
Our review case could see some of the biggest actors in this episode taking the witness stand under oath to explain what really happened.
And I have every confidence that this story will have the right ending: securing a criminal justice system that is genuinely free and fair, and where all are equal before the law.
Helen Zille is the leader of the DA
Spy tapes and a short-cut to criminal state status?
Mchunu was clearly confident that this would be good news for President Jacob Zuma, who would then be off the hook on corruption charges, yet again.
The premier may well be right that “there is nothing” in the tapes “after all”.
This is, quite simply, the most important review case in the 20 year history of our democracy.
If, as we suspect, the charges were withdrawn for political reasons, the NPA will be shown to have subverted the core constitutional principle it is mandated to defend: equality of all before the law.
If powerful politicians are able to manipulate the instruments of our criminal justice system to protect themselves and persecute their opponents, South Africa is on a short-cut to becoming a criminal state, where no-one can rely on the protection of the law, and no president need fear accountability to the law.
So far, this case has already shown how far we have shrunk from the constitutional ideal.
The NPA has, in fact, failed to implement two court orders, including one from the Supreme Court of Appeal, to hand over the “reduced record” including the “spy tapes”. They allowed Zuma’s lawyers to interdict them in order to prevent compliance, on the grounds that the entire record was “privileged”.
Zuma’s advocate has now conceded it is not. But, actually, this was obvious from the beginning. Just consider this simple timeline.
The “tapes” were allegedly recorded in conversations between Ngcuka and McCarthy between December 12 and 13 2007, when they apparently discussed the timing of reinstating the corruption charges against Zuma.
The ANC’s Polokwane elective conference was held from December 16 to 20, in which Zuma decisively defeated former president Thabo Mbeki in the election for the leadership of the ANC.
Mpshe, acting as NDPP, reinstituted the charges on December 27 2007, long before he became aware of the telephone conversations between Ngcuka and McCarthy.
Given this sequence of events, it makes absolutely no sense for Mpshe to argue that the content of the telephone conversations influenced his decision (or the timing) to re-institute charges.
Mpshe might, conceivably, have been able to make such a case if, for example, he had been persuaded to re-institute the charges before Polokwane, and if Zuma had been defeated in the leadership election as a result. But they weren’t and he wasn’t, so Mpshe’s stated reasons for dropping the charges make no sense.
And, it was Mpshe who reinstituted the charges.
By subsequently stating there was a “political motive” behind this, is he saying he allowed himself to be politically influenced to charge Zuma? That would be self-incrimination of breathtaking proportions.
Mpshe has conceded that the charges had “substantive merit” and that he was unaware of the conversations between Ngcuka and McCarthy. So how could he later claim the content of these conversations had influenced his decision to re-institute charges?
I pity the scriptwriters who may one day have to write a believable screenplay for this movie.
And we are only nearing the end of the beginning of this incredible saga.
The bulk of the drama still lies ahead.
Our review case could see some of the biggest actors in this episode taking the witness stand under oath to explain what really happened.
And I have every confidence that this story will have the right ending: securing a criminal justice system that is genuinely free and fair, and where all are equal before the law.
Helen Zille is the leader of the DA
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos