2005-11-23,+Zuma+is+a+victim+of+dirty+tricks,+Jon+Qwelane,+News24

= 'Zuma is a victim of dirty tricks' = News24, Johannesburg, 22/11/2005 09:31 - (SA)

By Jon Qwelane

There is a shocking lack of meaningful debate in this country. The nearest one comes to it is by way of personalised insults and attacks which very often have no substantial content.

But let me quickly state my point of view regarding yesterday's deliberately confusing statement which was issued after the meeting of the national executive committee of the ANC: I still stand by every word I wrote yesterday (Monday, November 21) about former deputy president Jacob Zuma and his detractors.

Yes, I believe Jacob Zuma is a victim of carefully orchestrated smears and dirty tricks. And I believe, too, that the many self-styled judges - in the media, inside the ANC, and on the debate forums of this site - have bucked to the prevalent tendency to find him guilty even before he has been asked to plead to anything by any competent court.

I believe that Zuma deserves to be accorded the constitutionally entrenched principle of "innocent until proved guilty". Where in the world, except in tinpot states and autocracies, has anyone been convicted by a court of public opinion?

Yesterday Zuma never admitted to any rape, despite the misleading statement issued to that extent, allegedly "quoting" him. He told the executive committee that he was aware of a rape charge being pursued by the police - just as many other people were aware of such a charge, from reading the newspapers or listening to the radio, or watching television.

That in itself, or by itself, is no admission that one has committed rape! Yet to some in the ANC executive committee and in the media and in the country at large, that meant he was admitting he was guilty as charged.

All too often we hear people who pay lipservice to abiding by the rule of law, believing in the constitution and the independence of the judiciary. Yet these people do not actually practise those very same ideals they claim to uphold.


 * The way they treat Zuma**

An example in point is the way they treat Jacob Zuma. He has never been found guilty by any court of law, yet a quick perusal of the mountain of correspondence that tumbled in yesterday reacting to my column clearly shows that nearly every writer has already condemned Zuma as a "crook" and "rapist"! The self-styled constitutional "democrats" suddenly behave like people who never heard of the expression "innocent until proved guilty".

Zuma has never been tried in any competent court for any of the claimed offences; only smeared and convicted in the court of public opinion. In other words, he is the victim of a kangaroo "court".

The rot first set in when "off-the-record" briefings were held with a select group of black editors, and a public institution (the national directorate of public prosecutions) was grossly abused to further sectarian interests in that Zuma was said by the then head of that body to have a "prima facie case of corruption to answer, but it is not winnable".

If you trawl through the discussion forums on this site, following yesterday's posting of my column, and read the comments fairly and objectively, you will discover a veritable slew of racist and personalised abuse directed at me for my sin of defending Zuma's right to every protection enjoyed by every citizen, not least the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved.


 * Debate in SA**

That litany of abuse and racist slurs and prejudice is an example of what passes for debate in South Africa. Nothing, or very little, in those missives has to do with the issues I raised.

Some even involve arithmetic from the beyond: one claims that "six and nine are the same . . .", and another that it took "two hours and seven minutes" for Zuma's alleged rape guilt to be demonstrated to me!

The power of the media to sow confusion and trouble must never be under-estimated, as amply demonstrated by the deliberate and horrendously misused "Zuma's admission", as the media chose to call, to the "rape".

Yet had the self-proclaimed judges in the media been doing their duty diligently, they would, for example, have asked very pertinent questions about the "rape victim":


 * What is her real background, apart from being a Zuma family friend of long standing from the days of exile etc?


 * Does she have a history, if you like, of this sort of thing? Does she have a boyfriend or boyfriends whom the media should have traced and interviewed? Could they go on record about her, and about her past?


 * She claims she was raped last week Wednesday, yet only reported her alleged ordeal on Friday. Why?


 * As a "rape" victim, why did she contact Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils first, and not, say, the Minister of Safety and Security or the local MEC for that portfolio, or the Health Minister or at least even the area police area commissioner?

I am being accused by the letter writers on the discussion forums of News24 of being a supporter of Jacob Zuma. To the extent that he is a victim of dirty tricks and insincere adherents of the rule of law, yes, I support the man's right (not privilege) to justice and a free trial.

Those pillorying him right now are the same people who grandly profess to be "democrats", yet freely pronounce him guilty of crimes without the usual courtesy of letting a court find him guilty!

I am going out to do some investigations of my own about the "rape victim", and in the meantime I will only hope that those nefarious princes of darkness who are busy sabotaging my e-mail and wiping off all the contents of my Inbox, will remember that mail tampering and eavesdropping on telephone calls no longer apply in this country - at least that is what the constitution claims.


 * Are you listening Mr Kasrils? Can you help, in the likely event I could be a victim of the spies in your department?

From: http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_1838510,00.html