Of particular note around the Jacob Zuma rape trial has been the fact that it invoked issues beyond the matter brought to court.
For a long time Zuma has decried the fact that he was being tried outside court without a platform being afforded him to defend himself. For this reason, we were highly disturbed when Judge Hilary Squires found Zuma to have had a ”generally corrupt relationship” with Schabir Shaik, simply because Zuma was not a fugitive and was never called to give evidence, either as a witness or as an accused.
Accordingly, we are ecstatic — those of us who believe in the real rule of law, not some pronouncements to intimidate political opponents. We are happy that Msholozi was afforded his crucial constitutional right to be heard in court, at least on the rape allegation, even though we have been disturbed by some highly placed leaders who went on to unfairly ridicule and mock Zuma even before the case was heard, something that clearly upset Judge Willem van der Merwe because it was in clear contempt of court.
These leaders, some who called themselves ”prominent women”, led an undisguised attack on the African National Congress deputy president when they knew he could not speak on matters that were sub judice. Clearly these are not leaders or intellectuals, but cowards who hide under the privileged platforms of media megaphones, abusing the political positions they hold to advance sectarian and factionalist positions disguised as the most noble views.
We are disturbed and disappointed at the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) reported expression of disappointment with the verdict, because the NPA has unmasked itself as an agent of factionalism instead of respect for the rule of law. Did the NPA seek a guilty verdict against all odds as opposed to seeking justice? Then we must be afraid, very afraid, of those who wield state power.
The NPA is endowed with legal experts whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers. Are our taxes being well spent? The answer should be obvious to the masses of our people whose own simple, but correct, thinking has been vindicated by the judge.
On a daily basis we have been at the mercy of a media establishment that seriously suffers from embedded journalism. Daily we have to deal with illogical observations by so-called ”experts” as well as journalists and editors, who are clearly grafted into the mainstream media not for their competence, but for the ”correct” views that they advance, all in the name of independent and objective journalism.
Most of our so-called independent intellectuals have failed to establish the simple fact that it is ANC structures that nominate who must become president of the ANC and ultimately of South Africa, not these individuals purporting to be the most advanced minds in our society.
Like the advisers of Adolph Hitler during the Normandy landing and Saddam Hussein’s communications minister during the invasion of Iraq, who gave false hope to their masters even when the dead end was apparent to all and sundry, they dismally fail to appreciate reality.
Clearly, this is proof that they do not speak for themselves, but for a master or masters who fail to refresh their mandate timeously so that they can be in tune with the unfolding dynamic events.
Bypassed by the reality of a verdict that could be read from the unfolding trial, the NPA has the audacity to tell the nation it is ”disappointed” by the Zuma verdict. In fact, we must be disappointed that the NPA still exists at the expense of our hard-earned taxes.
As for the leaders and so-called political analysts who continued to conduct a parallel moral trial aimed at undermining Zuma’s right to defend himself freely and without fear of contradiction, history will stand as judge. Our epoch will be known as one devoid of competent intellectuals because embedded journalists and pseudo-intellectuals were released into the mass media like a brood of fangless vipers.
Zuma was never called to prove his innocence because innocence is conferred on all by the Constitution (that is, innocent until proven guilty). The courts can prove guilt, hence the judge correctly issued a not-guilty verdict because there was no proof otherwise. We challenge those who have been in the forefront of ”the rule of law” to show the same ferocity in commending the rule of law as shown in the court process — and ultimately its verdict.
Zizi Kodwa is national spokesperson of the ANC Youth League