/ 15 May 2006

Blurred by the lens of ideology

One of human civilisation’s best moments must have been the day when two foes decided that, instead of clobbering each other with clubs to decide whose argument was better, they would defer to a wise elder to arbitrate. And even more importantly, that they both would live with the sage’s decision.

Ever since that day, human beings in all societies have sought ways to settle disputes without physically mangling their opponents.

In pre-colonial Africa the concept of inkundla/makgotla was established. In the modern era, we have courts of law presided over by professionals who carefully interrogate differing versions of the same event. If unhappy with the decision, we can appeal to higher levels in the process.

But as even the cavemen probably came to know — and yes, chances are that the earliest foes who clobbered each other were men — at some point you have to accept the decision of the arbitrator and move on.

Considering all that humanity has achieved since the taming of the cow and managing the land, it is amazing how Judge Willem van der Merwe’s decision that Jacob Zuma is not guilty of rape is being second-guessed for purely ideological reasons, instead of testing it against the legal muster.

“Whatever my conclusion at the end of this judgement may be, the outcome will not satisfy everybody. At no stage did I intend satisfying anybody and I will not do it now,” the judge remarked.

The view of legal experts across the board is that the Zuma judgement was comprehensive.

Of course, this does not mean that it is free of legal loopholes. Lawyers have the uncanny ability to successfully find fault with even what are thought to be the most reasoned judgements.

The judge was asked to determine whether there had been consensual sex between Zuma and his accuser. He found on the evidence led that the sex was consensual.

Instead of interrogating the merits of this finding, we are blackmailed into believing that women will henceforth be loath to report rape cases because they will not be believed and will be subjected to secondary victimisation.

This is as absurd as saying that black people will no longer trust the judicial system because the case against a white family tried with the “dry cleaner” murders collapsed.

It was not the first time that a person had been charged with rape and found not guilty, just as it was not the last time that an emotive murder case will fail.

The two events do not mean that it was justice’s apocalypse.

As is the rule with the court process, those who feel that justice was not done should put their arguments forward, not their emotions.

We are all entitled to opinions about the legal process, but to call a decision one does not agree with an injustice by selectively choosing three minutes of nearly six hours of reasoning is disingenuous.

Some of the complainant’s supporters want us to believe that the judge dismissed the case solely because she did not scream, take a bath or behave in any other manner that the judge thought rape victims ought to behave.

For them the evidence of all other witnesses is immaterial. So is the fact that the judge thought the evidence of the men who accused her of falsely alleging they had raped or attempted to rape her was inconsequential.

This ignores the judge’s summation that “the evidence of and regarding [the men who said she had accused them of rape] was not led to show that the complainant was of loose morals [but] that she was inclined to falsely accuse men of having raped or attempted to rape her”.

If there is an injustice, then it must be that the focus on the woman’s rights totally ignores the damage potentially caused to an innocent man.

Of course there are those who will make the distinction between being found not guilty and being deemed innocent. It is a spurious argument. The presumption is that of innocence, not of “not guilty”. In other words, Zuma was always innocent until a court had proven him guilty, which as we now all know, didn’t.

It may be hard to swallow but it will give greater credence to the fight against abuse if the responses to the court processes stop sounding like they are off a preset template.