It would seem to the Centre for Constitutional Rights that Mpshe has erred in his decision to drop charges against Zuma, for the following reasons:
# The NPA has stated on affidavit that it has “a firm basis for the institution of a prosecution”;
# The timing and motives of the decision of the former director of the DSO to charge Zuma would not now affect Zuma’s right to a fair trial; and
# The clear ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeal
SHOOT: Do we really need experts to tell us that? One thing this article says that is SPOT ON, a SHOOT ON TARGET is this:
It is now up to civil society to take the verdict on constitutional review.
If you are a blogger you in South Africa you might want to complain about this. If you are reading a blog, you might want to write to your newspaper (they do want to know and share what the public thinks). Of course on April 22 you can make your vote count and encourage others to do the same.
The decision to drop 18 charges against Jacob Zuma will be widely regarded as the most serious blow to the rule of law since the dawn of our new constitutional democracy. The NDPP is specifically empowered to review a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute. In exercising this prosecutorial discretion, the NDPP is bound by the NPA Act, which requires observation of the UN guidelines on the role of prosecutors, which mandate that prosecutors shall:
“… Protect the public interest, act with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim and pay attention to all relevant circumstances …”.
In a sworn statement in the appeal against the Harms judgment, the NPA stated that the evidence which it had accumulated provided “a firm basis for the institution of a prosecution”. In other words, it had sufficient and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution.
Advocate de Havilland is a director at the Centre for Constitutional Rights
|
No comments:
Post a Comment