Twisting+SACP+position+on+Zuma,+Nzimande,+Business+Day

Business Day, Johannesburg, 21 April 2006
=Twisting SACP’s position on Zuma=


 * Blade Nzimande**

THE South African Communist Party (SACP) is not averse to criticism and debate, but it must be based on fact and not misrepresentations and the building of straw people. A recent article on these pages was based on the media’s oft-repeated but wrong assumption that Jacob Zuma is only supported by the SACP and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu).

The alliance 10-a-side meeting on August 25 last year said: “The alliance reiterates that Comrade Zuma continues to enjoy the full and unreserved support of the alliance and each of its component organisations and members”.

The July 2006 African National Congress (ANC) national general council expressed its full confidence and support for Zuma. And nothing has changed. This begs the question of why the media and its analysts insist on separating the ANC from its allies on the question of support for Zuma. Could it be that they know something that we do not?

It is false to say that it was the SACP that insisted on payment of Zuma’s legal fees by the state. It was the same August 25 alliance meeting that urged “Comrade Zuma’s lawyers to approach the state to cover the costs of his legal defence, since he is facing allegations that emanate from his role as a public office-bearer”.

Apart from these factual misrepresentations, it is important to restate the SACP’s principled stance on the Zuma matter. The SACP stands firmly behind the principle that no one is above the law, but at the same time everybody must be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise through a credible judicial process. It was for this reason that we objected to the pronunciation of a prima facie case against Zuma, but without charging. The SACP also objected to the holding of a “confidential” press briefing by the National Prosecuting Authority which possibly violated Zuma’s rights. In any case, no one goes to court already guilty; except on a prima facie basis.

Readers also need to be reminded that the public protector, whose report was endorsed by Parliament, found that Zuma’s rights were indeed violated. Concerns have been raised that government itself has some explaining to do, especially on the failure to adequately follow up the recommendations of the public protector and the findings of the Hefer Commission.

To remind readers, Judge Joos Hefer concluded on leaks from the National Prosecuting Authority: “It is beyond doubt that leaks did occur. Such a state of affairs cannot be tolerated. In a country such as ours where human dignity is a basic constitutional value and every person is presumed to be innocent until he or she is found guilty, this is wholly unacceptable.

“The Prosecuting Authority Act was not enacted for nothing and as long as someone in the national director’s office keeps flouting the prohibition against the disclosure of information, one cannot be assured that the prosecuting authority is being used for the purpose for which it was intended.”

Last year’s Scorpions raids on Zuma’s homes and his lawyer’s offices, which were both declared illegal by two high court judgments, were also strongly condemned by the same alliance meeting in August. The SACP is agreed that all the issues outlined above set very dangerous legal, if not political, precedents and, if unchecked, can lead to abuse of state organs for political ends, and have created the widely held perception that Zuma is being politically persecuted.

The SACP is of the view that our stance on the abuse of Zuma’s rights is of the same order as that of the allegations against Cyril Ramaphosa, Tokyo Sexwale and Mathews Phosa a few years back. Ours is a stance which we will uphold irrespective of who is involved, just as we challenge light sentences for farmers who brutally assault or kill black farmworkers.

The SACP is in alliance with the ANC and Cosatu and not their individual leaders. We also have our own independent working class programmes, which are well known. That is why we, in our own right, enjoy the support of millions of workers and the poor of our country.

The question of who becomes the next ANC president is not a matter for the SACP, but for the ANC, and the ANC alone.

In respecting the sub judice rule, the SACP has decided not to comment on the evidence before Zuma’s rape trial until the trial is over. Save to say that nothing has been said in the rape trial, either by the accused or the complainant, changes our stance on HIV/AIDS. Dare we remind all that some six years ago we were, after all, one of the organisations that boldly and publicly defended the scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS, when such doubt about this was thrown into the public arena?


 * Nzimande is general secretary of the SACP.


 * From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A188746**

817 words