Zuma+never+asked+for+his+day+in+court,+Mduduzi+Dlamini,+Star



=**Zuma never asked for his day in court, Mbeki introduced the phrase **=


 * Mduduzi Dlamini, Letters, The Star, 19 February 2008**

That the state has committed serious blunders in its pursuit of ANC President Jacob Zuma is mirrored only by the blunders committed by the media.

For the umpteenth time in The Star's partisan crusade, the leader "Disingenuous legal tactics" (February 15) represents a bludgeoning of reason.

First of all, Zuma never asked for his "day in court". Those words were uttered by President Thabo Mbeki as he dismissed Zuma as state deputy president, "until (he) has his day in court". The media, however, repeated this erroneous attribution to Zuma until it believed its error; as it did with the "generally corrupt relationship" phrase attributed to a trial judge who never said it.

Let's clear this up: Zuma has not tried to bar evidence from coming to court. On the contrary, it has been the state that has not conducted itself with clean hands. When the state applied to access Mauritian documents, Judge Combrick ruled that only a trial judge had the jurisdiction to decide the matter.

When the state went to trial in July 2006, it sought a postponement on the basis that it was not ready to prosecute, but deliberately omitted to seek from Judge Msimang permission to obtain the Mauritian documents, effectively denying Zuma a chance to contest such admissibility. Thus, the state's action necessitated a costly separate legal action that is now before the Constitutional Court (Concourt).

It must not be forgotten that the state informed the trial judge it was ready to prosecute Zuma within a month should the defence admit to the use of documentary evidence that had been gathered at the infamous August raids. Judge Msimang struck the case off the roll since the state was not ready to prosecute, and advised the state to gets its ducks in a row. More than a year later, the state had not charged Zuma. Instead, he was charged almost 14 months later. Clearly, the state has deliberately delayed the case.

In the meantime, the state conveniently circumvented the trial judge by applying to have the Mauritian documents without necessarily informing the judge that such had been declared the prerogative of a trial judge. Indeed, there was absolutely no necessity for the state to approach a separate judge. Zuma went to appeal Judge Levinsohn's decision to authorise the assistance to obtain Mauritian documents without his rights to defence and access to court when, in effect, he had been an accused all along. Clearly, his constitutional rights were breached. Indeed, damaging claims, which could not be challenged, were proffered by the state against Zuma in his absence in order to obtain permission for Mauritian assistance. This was in effect a trial run.

The SCA, however, successfully upheld the state's appeal solely on the basis of Zuma's lack of //locus standi in judicio// to challenge the decision of a judge without necessarily taking into account the existence of a previous verdict that only a trial judge would have jurisdiction. That the state had effectively circumvented the trial judge by using a separate section of the law was an abuse of justice mechanisms by the state.

Hence, Zuma's constitutional challenge is the case of citizens' rights versus the state. It is vitally important that he contests these rights. Secondly, your claim that "it is without doubt the most disingenuous legal tactic ever attempted, since is it is precisely Zuma's unprecedented legal manoeuvres that most of the delays have occurred" is disingenuous media innuendo, if not blatant propaganda. Precisely the opposite is the case: it is the state that has unduly delayed this matter to come before trial.

As for your claim that "every other lower court has ruled against (Zuma)", the state appealed the matter of the raids to the SCA precisely because it was ruled off-side in conducting the raids when the case was sub judice. Zuma appealed only the matter of Mauritian documents, on which the state had circumvented a court ruling in order to obtain.

Were this America - where citizens' rights are paramount - the media would be rightly outraged by the conduct of the state so far. The continued propaganda on behalf of the state by the media illustrates how deeply embedded media is against Zuma owing to solicitations by the former national director of public prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka. When it comes to Zuma, all of the media's self-proclaimed and vaunted independence vanishes.


 * Mduduzi Dlamini, Orlando East, Soweto**


 * From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4261304**

755 words