Constitutional provision protecting a #Zuma.
There is nothing to prevent an inquest involving anyone named Zuma. But when it comes to criminal prosecutions, the position in law becomes highly complicated.
The NPA are revisiting their decision not to prosecute a case of alleged culpable homicide. No doubt they considered their first decision to be legally sound. But the outcome of an inquest has required their decision to be revisited.
I wonder whether the NPA were aware of the Constitutional provision making it illegal to prosecute anyone named Zuma. It's the same provision granting anyone named Zuma exemption from answering questions in Parliament or answering to Parliament.
One of this provision's less well known sub-clauses is that it automatically designates any swimming pool owned by a Zuma as a fire-pool and a national key point, thus automatically qualifying it for the State subsidy of essential security installations at key points.
No doubt we will shortly hear a long overdue apology from the Public Protector, whose Nkandla report inexplicably failed to take the full ambit of this provision into account before she rushed to render her controversial, and unfortunate report.
So too, must the EFF and Julius Malema apologize. Since a Zuma cannot be compelled to answer questions in Parliament or to Parliament at all, it follows logically that a Zuma can't be compelled to explain to Parliament whether he did or did not know about alleged erroneous expenditure operating to his benefit. Clearly this gives rise to legal presumption that a Zuma can never be held to have been aware of any such misdirection of State expenses.
This is borne out by the last sub-clause, which specifically provides that it would be manifestly unfair in the above circumstances if a Zuma was compelled to pay back the money and thus such repayment is prohibited.
Go figure. The ANC were right all along! Spare a thought for Helen Zille. All that effort to get those tapes...and now this...
I conclude by mentioning that my application to change my surname to Siegfried Zuma will be filed at the High Court on Monday.
SG WALTHER 2014
So too, must the EFF and Julius Malema apologize. Since a Zuma cannot be compelled to answer questions in Parliament or to Parliament at all, it follows logically that a Zuma can't be compelled to explain to Parliament whether he did or did not know about alleged erroneous expenditure operating to his benefit. Clearly this gives rise to legal presumption that a Zuma can never be held to have been aware of any such misdirection of State expenses.
This is borne out by the last sub-clause, which specifically provides that it would be manifestly unfair in the above circumstances if a Zuma was compelled to pay back the money and thus such repayment is prohibited.
Go figure. The ANC were right all along! Spare a thought for Helen Zille. All that effort to get those tapes...and now this...
I conclude by mentioning that my application to change my surname to Siegfried Zuma will be filed at the High Court on Monday.
SG WALTHER 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment