Among reasons given by President Jacob Zuma for non-disclosure is that this would gravely infringe and impinge on the privacy and dignity of a number of persons, including himself - and certain other "images" would be "tarnished".

That being the case, that is also precisely why all relevant information should be disclosed. If in the process certain images are irreparably tarnished, then so be it. If the "tarnished ones" feel they were unfairly or illegally besmirched, they are free to set about polishing their tarnished images.

Studying the race by Republican candidates for nomination in the US presidential election, one is amazed at how all aspects of the candidates' lives are probed.

Newt Gingrich even had to sweat blood in public over an affair he had more than a decade ago. Does Zuma find that amusing?

The obvious principle that should be applied in a proper democracy is this: "If you are innocent then cooperate speedily, willingly and fully in divulging all information that pertains to allegations made against you."

That's the democratic way of doing things - and such transparency is what we expect.