pic

The Wild Frontier

Politics. News. New media. Old media.
Posted: November 4th, 2008 | By Ray Hartley

Herewith the full heads of argument of the NPA in its Constitiutional Court effort to get Judge Chris Nicholson’s ruling that Zuma was not properly charged overturned.

Download the pdf for the full document:

npa-heads-of-argument-sca.pdf

Here is a key extract:

Nicholson J also made a series of findings that successive Ministers of Justice
had improperly interfered with the NPA’s decisions over the years, initially not to
prosecute Mr Zuma and later to prosecute him. It is not clear why he made these
findings.
We will submit that his lordship ought not to have made any of these findings
because,
- they were findings of facts never pleaded or advanced by anybody;
- they violated the Plascon-Evans rule;
- they were irrelevant to the issues before the court, and
- they were in any event wrong in that they were the product of a flawed
and unjustified analysis of the evidence.

 
 


Comments

 

mandla

November 10, 2008 at 2:15 pm

This is the strangest conspiracy in the world. There are no traitors who testified about it. No minutes, no records, not a single person in government who testified that there was a smell of conspiracy against Zuma… Nothing at all only in the mind of Jacob Zuma and judge Nicholson!

The logic used is very strange.(read Paragraphs 168, 169 and 220 of Judge Chris Nicholson’s judgement) It goes like: since Mbeki is the only person who has first hand knowledge of the conspiracy anyway(which means it is assumed that it is already a fact) and is not willing to divulge this or acknowledge that it exists, the judge has no choice but to uphold Zuma’s version about the conspiracy.

In simple English it means if someone accuses you of being a witch, and you dont rebutt the allegation or give your witchcraft paraphanalia for scrutiny, you might as well be a real witch! since the accuser’s assertion, in the abscence of your rebuttal, stands as fact.

I am not a lawyer, but I think this judge’s logic is absurd! This argument may, however, hold in cases involving special knowledge in procurement or buying and selling of shares, but NOT in matters of conspiracy. This legal gimmick presented Nicholson with an opportunity to deliver Mbeki’s head to the hyenas.

Then there was Mauritius where the whole argument collapsed and couldnt hold water.



Leave a Comment