<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5754077810001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>For the better of twenty years, Anti-arms deal activist, Terry Crawford-Browne has been fighting to expose the corruption and fraud around the multi-billion-rand military acquisition project finalised in 1999 by the South African government.</p>


Arms deal cover-up worse than the crime – Terry Crawford-Browne

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5752860102001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>It&#8217;s a historical day, Former president Jacob Zuma will be prosecuted for 16 chargers including corruption, racketeering and fraud, CNBC Africa reporter Aviwe Mtila was there when the announcement was made and he joins us now for more.</p>


Abrahams says Zuma to face prosecution

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5752863674001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>The announcement South Africans have been looking forward to has finally been made; Charges against former president Jacob Zuma related to the arms deal have been reinstated.</p>


DA to fight state footing Zuma’s legal fees

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5752798497001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>Former president, Jacob Zuma, will finally have his day in court, this after the National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams decided that Zuma will face 16 charges relating to fraud, corruption and racketeering.</p>


Zuma to have his day in court

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5737071583001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>The current developments around State Capture in South Africa continue to unfold. In the latest, the NPA has confirmed Atul Gupta has filed an application to challenge the preservation order that was used to freeze R10 million.</p>


Is Duduzane Zuma wanted by the Hawks?

<p>South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma has provided arguments on why he should not be prosecuted for corruption, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said on Thursday, as pressure mounts for the scandal-plagued president to step down.</p>
<div id="attachment_290368" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-290368" class="wp-image-290368 size-full" src="http://cnbc.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Zuma_hand_Flickr.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="693" /><p id="caption-attachment-290368" class="wp-caption-text">DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN10 &#8211; Jacob G. Zuma, President of South Africa, speaks at the Opening Media Lunch &#8216;World Cup 2010 &#8211; before the kick-off&#8217; during the Annual Meeting 2010 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2010 at the Central Sport Hotel.<br />Copyright by World Economic Forum<br />swiss-image.ch/Photo by Michael Wuertenberg</p></div>
<p>Zuma, who has faced and denied numerous corruption allegations since taking office, submitted documents on Wednesday night to the NPA providing reasons why 783 counts of corruption relating to a 30 billion rand ($2 billion) arms deal arranged in the late 1990s should not be reinstated.</p>
<p>The NPA extended the deadline to the end of January for Zuma to make his representations before deciding whether to proceed against him.</p>
<p>South Africa’s High Court reinstated the graft charges in April 2016 and the Supreme Court upheld that decision in October, rejecting an appeal by Zuma and describing the NPA’s decision to set aside the charges as “irrational”.</p>
<p>Zuma has faced numerous calls to step-down with the ruling African National Congress (ANC) mounting the pressure after admitting to having discussed removing him as president before the end of his term..</p>
<p>Reporting by Tanisha Heiberg; Editing by James Macharia</p>


South Africa’s Zuma asks prosecutors to drop graft charges

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5722329538001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority Hadiza Bala Usman told CNBC Africa that Intels is yet to remit 48 million dollars it owes the NPA and that they have given the firm (Intels) an ultimatum of two weeks to make the payment.</p>


Nigerian Ports Authority gives Intels 2-week ultimatum over $48mn debt

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5721543179001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>The weekend papers carried stories alleging that the Hawks and the NPA was close to issuing arrest warrants for Mineral Resources Minister Mosebenzi Zwane and the Gupta brothers.</p>


Hawks comment on arrest allegations on mines minister

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5719960160001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>In recent weeks, the National Prosecuting Authority has been making grounds recovering monies lost through state capture. In this effort, the Hawks have raided the offices of the Free State Premier as well as the Agriculture Department.</p>


State Capture: Why compromised executives should be declared delinquent

<p>A South African court has authorized the freezing of 1.6 billion rand ($130 million) in assets earned by global consultancy McKinsey and a firm linked to friends of President Jacob Zuma, a source at the state prosecutors’ office told Reuters.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-286362 size-full" src="http://cnbc.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/McKinsey_Flickr.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>
<p data-reactid="43">The Pretoria High Court made the decision in December after a request by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to freeze the fees earned by McKinsey and local consultancy Trillian for advising South African power utility Eskom.</p>
<p data-reactid="44">Privately-held McKinsey, one of the world’s largest management consultancies, has already lost several clients over the contract.</p>
<div class="DPSlot_container_2dHIN DPSlot_inline_1oeo6"></div>
<p data-reactid="46">This month Zuma agreed to set up a commission of enquiry into allegations of influence peddling by the Gupta brothers, who controlled the firm McKinsey partnered with on the 1.6 billion rand contract to advise Eskom in 2016.</p>
<p>Separately, parliament is investigating whether McKinsey knowingly let funds from Eskom be diverted to Trillian as a way of securing the contract.</p>
<div class="DPSlot_container_2dHIN DPSlot_inline_1oeo6 in-article-tag"></div>
<p data-reactid="48">“On Dec. 14, 2017, the NPA obtained a preservation order from the Pretoria High Court to preserve assets worth around 1.6 billion rand relating to Trillian and McKinsey,” said the NPA source, who declined to be identified.</p>
<p data-reactid="49">“Tomorrow parties in the case will be served with the order,” the source said. The order allows prosecutors to freeze assets pending the outcome of an investigation.</p>
<p data-reactid="50">A spokesman for McKinsey said on Monday it had not received formal communication about the preservation order.</p>
<p data-reactid="51">“As we have said before &#8230; we will return the fee we earned from the Eskom turnaround programme (R1.028bn) no matter what,” the spokesman said in an email to Reuters.</p>
<p data-reactid="52">McKinsey will cooperate with South African authorities in their investigations into the case, he added.</p>
<p data-reactid="53">McKinsey launched its own investigation into its handling of the partnership with Trillian and says it ceased work with the firm in March 2016 after due diligence showed links to the Gupta brothers.</p>
<p data-reactid="54">Trillian did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters on Monday. When contacted in November by Reuters, Trillian denied wrongdoing relating to the Eskom contract.</p>
<p data-reactid="55">Both Zuma and the Guptas deny wrongdoing. Zuma’s spokesman did not reply to a Reuters request for comment.</p>
<p data-reactid="56">The court decision is one of the first instances in which authorities have acted on allegations of wrongdoing by three Gupta brothers, Ajay, Atul and Rajesh, who South Africa’s anti-corruption watchdog accuses of siphoning off public funds.</p>
<p data-reactid="57">Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa was elected last month to replace Zuma as leader of the ruling African National Congress, putting him in pole position to become South Africa’s next president.</p>
<p data-reactid="58">He ran on a pledge to root out cases of corruption in government and on Saturday he said the judicial enquiry which Zuma agreed to set up should be given top priority.</p>
<p>($1 = 12.3221 rand)</p>
<div class="Attribution_attribution_o4ojT" data-reactid="59">
<p class="Attribution_content_27_rw" data-reactid="60">Editing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg</p>
</div>


South African court authorizes freezing of $130MN in McKinsey case: source

<p data-reactid="32">Lawyers for Jacob Zuma have until midnight to file papers outlining why nearly 800 corruption charges shelved before he became South African president eight years ago but recently reinstated by the courts should not be brought against him.</p>
<div id="attachment_119123" style="width: 1546px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-119123" class="wp-image-119123 size-full" src="http://cnbc.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/shutterstock_337743437.jpg" alt="" width="1536" height="1024" /><p id="caption-attachment-119123" class="wp-caption-text">South African President, Jacob Zuma. Photo: 360b/Shutterstock.com</p></div>
<p data-reactid="32">The revival of the charges could increase pressure on Zuma to step down before his term ends in 2019 and diminish his influence over who succeeds him when the ruling African National Congress (ANC) chooses a new leader in December.</p>
<p data-reactid="42">The 75-year-old president has faced and denied numerous other corruption allegations since taking office in 2009.</p>
<p>The 783 charges, which relate to a 30 billion rand ($2.2 billion) government arms deal arranged in the late 1990s, were filed but then dropped by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) shortly before he ran for the presidency.</p>
<p data-reactid="44">South Africa’s High Court reinstated the charges last year and the Supreme Court upheld that decision in October, rejecting an appeal by Zuma and describing the NPA’s decision to set aside the charges as “irrational”.</p>
<p data-reactid="45">The NPA said then that Zuma had until Nov. 30 to make submissions before it decided whether to pursue the charges.</p>
<p data-reactid="46">Spokesmen for the NPA and Zuma were not available for comment on Thursday.</p>
<p data-reactid="47">Last month’s Supreme Court ruling lifted the rand currency against the dollar as investors bet that Zuma’s removal may be inching closer.</p>
<p data-reactid="48">The president is unpopular with many investors after sacking respected finance minister Pravin Gordhan in March, a move that hit South African financial assets and helped tip the country’s credit ratings into “junk” territory.</p>
<p data-reactid="49">Infighting within the ruling ANC ahead of next month’s conference to elect a successor to Zuma as party chief has also sapped confidence among the investors upon whom South Africa relies to finance its hefty budget and current account deficits.</p>
<p data-reactid="50">One of South Africa’s leading universities, the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg, said on Thursday that it had appointed Gordhan as a visiting professor.</p>
<p data-reactid="52">He will join other ANC heavyweights who have ended up at the Wits after being sidelined by Zuma, among them another respected and ousted finance minister, Nhlanhla Nene, and former Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni.</p>
<p>Widely seen as a competent and honest technocrat, Gordhan has become an unlikely poster boy for public anger at the president, whose administration has been marred by missteps and allegations of corruption. Zuma denies any wrongdoing.</p>
<p>($1 = 13.6794 rand)</p>
<div class="Attribution_attribution_o4ojT" data-reactid="53">
<p class="Attribution_content_27_rw" data-reactid="54">Reporting by Ed Stoddard; Editing by Ed Cropley and Catherine Evans</p>
</div>


Deadline looms for South Africa’s Zuma over revived graft charges

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5620100571001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>South Africa&#8217;s President Jacob Zuma has until the 30 November 2017 to submit any representations to the National Director of Public Prosecutions. Joining CNBC Africa for more is NPA Spokesperson, Luvuyo Mfaku.</p>


NPA sets Zuma deadline to make representations about corruption charges

<p>South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on Friday upheld a ruling by the High Court that had reinstated corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma, piling further pressure on a head of state already facing several scandals.</p>
<p data-reactid="40">Zuma was appealing against a High Court ruling in April 2016 that ordered a review of a decision by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to set aside hundreds of corruption charges against Zuma. That decision allowed Zuma to run for president in 2009.</p>
<div class="Attribution_attribution_o4ojT" data-reactid="42">
<p class="Attribution_content_27_rw" data-reactid="43">Reporting by Tanisha Heiberg; Writing by James Macharia; Editing by Gareth Jones</p>
</div>


South African court upholds ruling reinstating corruption charges against Zuma

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5608747726001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
<p>The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal by President Jacob Zuma and the National Prosecuting Authority in the spy tapes saga- with costs.</p>


SCA dismisses Zuma spy tapes appeal with costs

<p><em><span class="fn author-name">Laurie Nathan |</span>University of Pretoria</em></p>
<p>Once again South Africa’s intelligence services are embroiled in controversy, apparently involved in dirty tricks and criminal activity.</p>
<p>New evidence of this has come to light against the backdrop of the presidential succession race in the governing African National Congress (ANC). One of the contenders, deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa, has been smeared in an apparent covert operation. It seems that those responsible had access to intelligence resources. In another recent case the country’s minister of police Fikile Mbalula was targeted in an undercover plot.</p>
<p>Since 1994 the intelligence services have been embroiled in many scandals. But because they operate secretly and with minimal oversight, South Africans will probably never know exactly what they are up to.</p>
<p>What is known – from revelations, leaks and investigations over the past 20 years – is that the intelligence services have not been adequately transformed since South Africa’s transition to democracy. The services have more in common with their apartheid-era predecessors than with the principles of the country’s democratic constitution.</p>
<p>This alarming state of affairs was exposed in a report based on an inquiry into the intelligence services in 2006-2008. The inquiry, known as the Matthews Commission, was established by then intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils after the domestic intelligence agency was caught spying illegally on senior ANC members and other politicians.</p>
<p>The commission produced a 300-page report that revealed the various ways in which the intelligence services were failing to comply with the constitution and legislation. The report also included numerous recommendations to ensure compliance.</p>
<p>The public release of the report was potentially a watershed moment. It shone a glaring spotlight on the normally dark corridors of the secret world of intelligence operations and offered a rare opportunity to clean out the rot. But the cabinet and parliament buried the report. This inflicted lasting damage on South Africa’s constitutional democracy.</p>
<h2>What’s gone wrong</h2>
<p>The intelligence scandals that have plagued post-apartheid South Africa are symptoms of a distressing lack of transformation, which is due to five factors.</p>
<p>First, the intelligence services are closely aligned to the ruling party and enmeshed in its factional politics. The constitution insists that the services must be politically non-partisan. But the executive and the ANC constantly blur the boundary between the party and the state.</p>
<p>This malaise is reinforced by the enduring affinity between ANC politicians and intelligence officers who were comrades during the liberation struggle.</p>
<p>It’s also relevant that the minister of intelligence and the heads of the services are appointed by the President. These appointments appear to be based on personal loyalty to him rather than on professional integrity and loyalty to the constitution.</p>
<p>The second reason for the lack of transformation is that the intelligence services have a culture of disregard for the law. The Matthews Commission was shocked to discover that the head of the National Intelligence Coordinating Committee believed that intelligence officers could legitimately “bend the rules” when confronted by serious security threats.</p>
<p>“Bending the rules” is a euphemism for breaking the law. Even if it is well intentioned, the problem is obvious. Disrespect for the law inevitably creates an environment in which misconduct flourishes. It also inevitably leads to intelligence officers lying to their minister and to parliament about breaking the law.</p>
<p>Third, the intelligence services are shrouded in excessive secrecy. They obviously need to keep certain matters secret, such as lawful investigations and the names of undercover agents. But the South African intelligence community is vastly less transparent than its counterparts in many other democratic countries.</p>
<p>Higher levels of secrecy lead to less public scrutiny and a greater risk of abuse of power.</p>
<p>Fourth, the intelligent oversight bodies lack the stomach to do their job. The Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence is empowered by exemplary legislation. The office has all the authority and powers it needs to conduct thorough investigations into alleged misconduct by the intelligence services. Sadly, it is scared to exercise these powers.</p>
<p>The office’s website asserts that “confidentially is the overriding principle” governing the work of the inspector-general and her staff. This reflects a deeply flawed understanding of the role of statutory oversight bodies. The overriding principle ought to be accountability – that is, the accountability of both the inspector-general and the intelligence services to parliament and the public.</p>
<p>The website itself is a perfect example of non-accountability and lack of transparency. It doesn’t provide any information about any investigation conducted by the inspector-general since 2008. It merely includes a list of media reports, the most recent dated 2010.</p>
<p>The joint parliamentary oversight committee on intelligence also has substantial authority and powers to deal decisively with intelligence mischief. But it too resembles a bunch of sheep guarding a pack of wolves.</p>
<p>The only entities that have made a serious attempt to hold the intelligence services accountable are non-governmental organizations. The most notable has been the Right to Know Campaign.</p>
<p>Finally, the experience of South Africa confirms a general lesson from newly democratic countries: the security services will be transformed if, and to the extent that, the executive wants them to be.</p>
<p>If the executive is not committed to transformation, the security services will be loyal to the president and the ruling party. They will not be loyal to citizens and the constitution. And they then pose a severe threat to democracy.</p>


Who is keeping an eye on South Africa’s spies? Nobody, and that’s the problem

<p>South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan declined on Thursday to say whether he was confident of the political support of the ruling ANC, less than a week before he must answer fraud charges in court.</p>
<p>Gordhan said he had tried not to let the case distract him while preparing a mid-term budget presented to parliament on Wednesday.</p>
<p>Gordhan is accused of fraudulently approving, in a previous stint as head of the revenue service, early retirement for a deputy tax commissioner and re-hiring him as a consultant, costing the tax agency 1.1 million rand ($79,000).</p>
<p>He has denied any wrong-doing, saying the case is politically motivated, a sentiment echoed by opposition parties, business leaders and some senior ANC figures. The state prosecutor has rejected allegations of political interference.</p>
<p>Asked during a post-budget breakfast meeting whether he was still confident he had political backing, Gordhan said: &#8220;I&#8217;m not trying to duck, but I&#8217;m not going to answer it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Gordhan, who on Wednesday slashed growth forecasts for the next three years and predicted wider budget deficits than previously expected, said he was not preoccupied with whether he had done enough to stave off credit rating downgrades.</p>
<p>&#8220;Our preoccupation is not rating agencies. Our preoccupation is putting the country on the right footing,&#8221; Gordhan said.</p>
<p>&#8220;If we build confidence to the point where we get investment going &#8230; everybody including ratings agencies will believe that we as a government are doing the right thing,&#8221; he said.﻿</p>
<p> </p>


South Africa's FinMin declines to comment on ANC backing

<p>There is a widely held view that the obligation of President Jacob Zuma to account for his past criminal misdeeds is restricted to the 783 charges arising from his relationship with Schabir Shaik. No or little account is taken of the misdeeds committed whilst in office as president. The source of this misconception is an apparent belief that the president, as head of state, is protected against liability for such conduct by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.</p>
<p>The doctrine of sovereign immunity (for it is a doctrine and not a rule of law) has a long, bleak provenance. The original state-makers were also the most successful and barbaric international bandits. In his book, Roads from Past to Future, Charles Tilly, the Joseph L. Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science at Columbia University, said this about the early history of state-making: “In times of war, indeed, the managers of full-fledged states often commissioned privateers, hired sometime bandits to raid their enemies and encouraged their regular troops to take booty. In royal service, soldiers and sailors were often expected to provide for themselves by preying on the civilian population: commandeering, raping, looting, taking prizes.”</p>
<p>In time, when state-making became a more respectable activity, those who continued to structure their ambitions upon state power found a very convenient and even seductive attraction in the immunity that the bandits of old had decreed for themselves. This doctrine came to be expressed in the maxim, rex non potest peccare (the king can do no wrong). </p>
<p>There is both an international and a domestic dimension to the doctrine; the former based upon the quaint principle of international comity, which requires an immunity from prosecution of the head of state under the laws of any foreign jurisdiction. The latter indemnifies the head of state against any criminal prosecution under the laws of the state of the incumbent. Only the latter is relevant for present purposes.</p>
<p>In March 2014, in the wake of the Public Protector’s finding that Zuma had “benefitted unduly” from the Nkandla upgrades, the Democratic Alliance (DA) laid a criminal charge of corruption against the president. Nothing has come of that initiative and, despite the lapse of 30 months, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has issued no statement in connection with this charge.</p>
<p>Does the NPA perhaps take the view that that no prosecution is possible on account of the doctrine of sovereign immunity? Or is there some other undisclosed reason for this inexplicable unresponsiveness? This second possibility can surely now be eliminated. </p>
<p>On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, simultaneously with the disclosure of the decision to institute a prosecution on charges of fraud against Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, the national director of the NPA, Shaun Abrahams, assured a national audience that the NPA performs its constitutionally mandated obligations impartially, “without fear, favour or prejudice”. That leaves only the possibility that the NPA is convinced that the president is protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.</p>
<p>The question then is whether they are right, or wrong.</p>
<p>If the principle of sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution for the head of state, during the term of office of the incumbent is part of South African law, then director Shaun Abrahams and his team of lawyers have got it right; if not, they are mistaken.</p>
<p>Sovereign immunity, of the kind described, can only apply if the source of the indemnity is to be found within the body of the South African law. The supreme law of South Africa, to which all other law (national or international) must be subordinated, is the Constitution. Section 1 (c) of the founding provisions of the Constitution stipulates that South Africa is a sovereign democratic state founded upon the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law. </p>
<p>The remainder of the enquiry would be a relatively simple matter for director Shaun Abrahams and his investigative team to undertake: does the constitution permit of the exceptional treatment of the president for criminal acts committed during his term of office, and if not, might the rule of law create such an indulgence? If the answer to both enquiries results in a negative response then director Shaun Abrams, acting without fear, favour or prejudice, has a simple decision to make.</p>
<p>The constitution creates no such exception. On the contrary, it explicitly stipulates that everyone (and that would include the president) is equal before the law. There is no exception provided for in the constitution.</p>
<p>It is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, that everyone is equally subject to the law. This cannot be altered by whim or caprice, or even by legislative enactment, for any such action would itself violate the rule of law, and would therefore be in violation of a founding principle of the constitution. The conclusion therefore is abundantly clear: President Jacob Zuma is subject to precisely the same law as every other citizen of the country. Why then has the NPA been so dilatory in pursuing the DA’s charge of corruption against the president?</p>
<p>The only remaining possibility is that the NPA holds the view that the available evidence will not sustain a conviction on a charge of corruption. Zuma is on record as having proclaimed that he was unaware of the upgrades that were being affected at Nkandla. This assertion is simply incredible; at least it is so in the case of any sentient individual. The idea that Zuma was unaware of the R240 million worth of improvements being undertaken at his traditional homestead can be summarily rejected. In any event Zuma has contradicted himself on this assertion. He has said that he did, in fact, give instructions in connection with the cattle kraal. This could not have happened if he had been unaware of the work being done at the premises.</p>
<p>The conclusion is irresistible: the NPA has no valid reason whatsoever for having failed to initiate a prosecution in connection with the Nkandla upgrades. But there are other implications. Apart from the 783 counts of corruption, which have been languishing for the past 11 years, Zuma is criminally answerable for all the offences committed by him during the course of his administration. This would naturally include the charges relating to the state capture by the Gupta brothers, for it is inconceivable that this could have happened without the active participation of Zuma.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Author Rex van Schalkwyk is a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa and is the Chairman of the Free Market Foundation’s Rule of Law Board of Advisers.The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Free Market Foundation.</em></p>
<p>@FMFSouthAfrica﻿</p>
<p> </p>


Millions of S.A&#39;s most vulnerable face benefits cut-off

NPA

Arms deal cover-up worse than the crime – Terry Crawford-Browne

Abrahams says Zuma to face prosecution

DA to fight state footing Zuma’s legal fees

Zuma to have his day in court

Is Duduzane Zuma wanted by the Hawks?

South Africa’s Zuma asks prosecutors to drop graft charges

Nigerian Ports Authority gives Intels 2-week ultimatum over $48mn debt

Hawks comment on arrest allegations on mines minister

State Capture: Why compromised executives should be declared delinquent

South African court authorizes freezing of $130MN in McKinsey case: source

Deadline looms for South Africa’s Zuma over revived graft charges

NPA sets Zuma deadline to make representations about corruption charges

South African court upholds ruling reinstating corruption charges against Zuma

SCA dismisses Zuma spy tapes appeal with costs

Who is keeping an eye on South Africa’s spies? Nobody, and that’s the problem

South Africa's FinMin declines to comment on ANC backing

Op-Ed: Sovereign immunity: Are heads of state immune from criminal prosecution?

News Tips

Advertise With Us

NPA

Arms deal cover-up worse than the crime – Terry Crawford-Browne

Abrahams says Zuma to face prosecution

DA to fight state footing Zuma’s legal fees

Zuma to have his day in court

Is Duduzane Zuma wanted by the Hawks?

South Africa’s Zuma asks prosecutors to drop graft charges

Nigerian Ports Authority gives Intels 2-week ultimatum over $48mn debt

Hawks comment on arrest allegations on mines minister

State Capture: Why compromised executives should be declared delinquent

South African court authorizes freezing of $130MN in McKinsey case: source

Deadline looms for South Africa’s Zuma over revived graft charges

NPA sets Zuma deadline to make representations about corruption charges

South African court upholds ruling reinstating corruption charges against Zuma

SCA dismisses Zuma spy tapes appeal with costs

Who is keeping an eye on South Africa’s spies? Nobody, and that’s the problem

South Africa's FinMin declines to comment on ANC backing

Op-Ed: Sovereign immunity: Are heads of state immune from criminal prosecution?

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Newsletters