WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2007-05-30 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
Seven court cases in the next four months, with the first having started on Tuesday morning, will determine whether Jacob Zuma runs for ANC president as an accused fraudster or an exonerated man.
Before the ANC elects its leadership in November, three courts will decide whether the State may obtain evidence related to the alleged R500 000 bribe Zuma received from French arms company Thint – as well as if it can use documents on which the State produced a massive audit into Zuma’s financial affairs.
This morning the Durban High Court is set to hear the first of the cases, in which Zuma’s lawyers are expected to try to quash attempts to obtain the original documents that helped to convict Schabir Shaik and which have been held by Mauritian authorities.
In court documents, Zuma has accused the National Prosecuting Authority of “engineering” its investigation to thwart his political ambitions. “This would greatly aid the cause of those politically opposed to me playing any leadership role in the ANC or government of the SA,” he stated.
| ‘the state has no interest in Zuma’s political ambitions’ |
He added that he was “disturbed” that the NPA, by seeking information related to its investigations from British and Mauritian authorities, was effectively casting him “in the role of a criminal and suspect”.
“The present letter of request (to British authorities) … makes the bland statement that the offence (that I am being investigated for) is not political. It makes no mention of the fact that the issue of a political motive as a component of the investigation directed at all my affairs has been central to my resistance to the manner of the investigation,” he said.
While admitting that Zuma “is a suspect and has been for some time”, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anton Steynberg has stressed that the state “has no interest in Zuma’s political ambitions”.
According to Steynberg, Zuma and Thint’s objections were aimed at preventing “the State’s possession of damning evidence which might be used against them in any future prosecution”. In addition to the constitutional court’s ruling on Shaik’s appeal bid, the following cases will shape if and how the State prosecutes Zuma or Thint:
The NPA has already won an order from Judge Phillip Levensohn allowing prosecutors to request certain documents from the Mauritian authorities, which the state has described as “damning” against Zuma and Thint.
Zuma and Thint will appeal against that decision in the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) on September 21, but are now trying to stop the State from obtaining the documents prior to that appeal being heard.
Zuma’s attorneys are trying to stop the State from obtaining information about his and Thint’s financial affairs from banks and lawyers in the UK.
The Scorpions’ raids on Zuma and his current attorney Michael Hulley, former attorney Julekha Mahomed and Thint’s offices.
The documents include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, the former chief executive of Thint. The SCA will also have to rule on the State’s appeal against a ruling by Johannesburg High Court Judge Ismail Hussain, who ruled that the searches and seizures of documents from Mahomed’s home and office were unlawful.
Thint is also appealing against a decision by Pretoria High Court Judge Ben du Plessis, who found that the search warrants used to raid its offices were lawful.