'We don't want Umshini Wam - we want laptops and iPads'
Image by: SIPHIWE SIBEKO / Reuters
Julius Malema's R4.6-million money-laundering charge and a R16-million tax bill have sown ugly rifts within the ruling party - this time pitting the ANC's headquarters against its Limpopo provincial executive committee.
The ANC yesterday distanced itself from accusations that the charges were politically motivated, a move meant to distance Malema's archrivals - including President Jacob Zuma - from the barrage of criminal prosecutions he is currently facing.
In a stern warning to those stirring up an internal ANC revolt and drumming up sympathy and support for Malema, the ruling party said it would not entertain "inflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations against the ANC and government agencies".
Referring to a statement issued by the Limpopo provincial executive committee on Tuesday in which it claimed state resources were being used to settle political scores, ANC national spokesman Jackson Mthembu hit back, saying: "We reject this accusation with contempt as it is misleading and seeking to undermine the rule of law and jurisprudence of the country."
After almost two years of investigations by several law enforcement agencies, Malema appeared in the Polokwane Magistrate's Court yesterday. He was released on R10000 bail.
In a show of support, several Limpopo provincial leaders - including Clifford Motsepe, Soviet Lekganyane, Joshua Matlou, Pinky Kekana and Lawrence Mapoulo - attended court proceedings.
The ANC's Limpopo provincial executive committee - on which Malema's close ally, Premier Cassel Mathale, sits - said Malema's woes were a "clear indication that abuse of power by the state is again taking place in South Africa".
Limpopo ANC's Makondelele Mathivha said: "The PEC unanimously agreed that these state actions against the young man [Malema] are not backed by a genuine case to fight against corruption and fraud, but by a repressive political intent to erode hard-won rights of citizens to gather, express themselves, associate with other persons or groupings, affiliate to organisations of their own choosing; generally the right to freedom of association, speech and so on."
The committee said Malema's removal by police from Marikana was a "clear demonstration of this erosion of the entrenched freedoms".
This is the second time Malema has caused serious divisions in the ANC. Last year, ANC Youth League members turned violent and burned Zuma T-shirts as Malema faced disciplinary charges.
But Mthembu said the accusations by Limpopo's ANC members were attempts to "prejudge the case before it has even started".
"The charges have been preferred by competent institutions that derive from our constitution. We want to put it on record that we have confidence in our state institutions to discharge their duties without any political motive.
"We want to state categorically that the ANC, its president, Comrade Jacob Zuma, and its leadership have no role in the charges," Mthembu said.
He said the accusations by Limpopo ANC and the y outh league were an insult to law-enforcement agencies, including the judiciary.
"We want to appeal to our structures and to all South Africans to refrain from using inflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations against the ANC and government agencies."
The rift between the ANC top brass erupted as Malema, outside court in Polokwane, hurled insults against the National Prosecuting Authority and Zuma.
"They [National Prosecuting Authority] brought me here for nothing, they want to appear on TV on my name. They want to use my name to steal fame. These thieves. Jacob Zuma the thief! Jacob Zuma, they dropped charges, he had 700 [corruption] charges dropped against him. I have one charge against me.
"We are ready to answer to any charge against us. This is not a disciplinary committee of Cyril Ramaphosa, who buys buffaloes for R18-million," Malema said.
An "unshaken" Malema questioned the NPA's case against him, saying: "This is not a DC for buffaloes, this is a court of law. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt about what we did, do you have evidence?
"We are not saying that our charges must be dropped. We have presented ourselves, we are not hiding anything. We are not like the head of state who runs away from the courts, who calls for umshini wam to shoot the courts. We don't want umshini wam', we want laptops and iPads so that we can prepare our answers to the courts."
SHARE YOUR OPINION
If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.SecretVoice
Posted 234 days agoBrianKZN
But unfortunately in this blighted banana republic "might is right"! Malema is quite correct, the leader of the pack is an uneducated bafoon, (the pot calling the kettle black! How ironic!)who drives ANC policy willy nilly at the expense of everything else including infastructure development and misguidedly spends the nation's wealth on less important things thereby missing an opportunity to create jobs and services! BBEE = Blind Black Erroneous Enterprises!
Heaven help us, nobody else will!
AfricaRevolt2011
Posted 234 days agoOzgood
l984
Perhaps campaigns like ABZ should be renamed to ABTZ (Anyone BETTER than Zuma)?
This 'mistake' has already cost the country, the democracy and the economy dearly, and if you have not learnt from it - you are doomed to repeat it.
Unfortunately SA cannot afford and is not going to survive another 'mistake'.
rahima
1. You want nationalisation of mines. You make a big noise for this thing, "nationalisation".
You are clueless. You think that the mine money will get anywhere near your pocket? HaHa.
Eksdom is nationalised, SAA is nationalised, Transnet is nationalised, etc. So do you get free electricity? Free airplane seats? Free train ticket? Nationalisation will help you bug$er All.
2. "Personally I thought NPA is a independent institution that does not need a governement minister to tell them who to charge and when".
You have been asleep for at least 10 years!
rrza
Posted 234 days agoScribbles
Scribbles
Posted 234 days ago*Cough*Kill for Zuma*Cough*
MicaParis
Posted 234 days agoThe government must be an all inclusive system of affairs, the Malema –Zuma political impasse was caused by gangsterism which had since characterised the ANC since the days of Thabo Mbeki as the President. If a cadre is not part of the gang, no matter how good and brilliant he is, he will never lead until his gang leader access the top throne so that he can be recognised. The is an unfortunate part which is causing infightings such as what Malema is doing. How does Zuma appoint an accessory ANCYL member as a Minister and leave out the ANCYL President? In political superiority the President must be considered first but Zuma consider others because they come from the same Province as him so where does that leave the present ANC of today?
Malema is a demagogue but not all the things he is saying are wrong, some are right especially on ANC policies and cultural values. However it will be foolish to tip him as the next President as his supporters are thinking just like Zuma the ‘’duo’’ does not suit the ‘’part’’.
seanred
Posted 234 days agoThen they will drop the charges, I have every confidence in them to do that, just like JZ.
m1si2zi3nzo4
Posted 234 days agoMicaParis
Might we say we anticipate yet another ''legal blunder'' by the Presidency!? Seriously Jacob Zuma's legal advisers must all be fired for advising the President wrong! Zuma does not know anything about the ''law'' as he is not ‘’educated’’/ legal expert but however people who had been hired to perform legal duties on his behalf must be fired without any digestion for their total failure and embarrassing advices to the President. The Presidential legal advice team is in shambles and shame, how can the most trusted legal ‘’gurus’’ go so down low? Zuma must ''open'' his eyes, something wrong which have got nothing to do with Mangaung is going on and that is targeting his ‘’image and credibility’’ as a leader, such blunders cannot be tolerated at that level is a shame! When Popela said Malema was going to be charged, I thought of something ‘’very big’’ which is going to drag number of ‘’heavyweights’’ into the dark only to find that actually Zuma and the brigades wanted to pull a publicity stunt against Juju and clearly have got nothing against Juju!
staren
The POCA along with FICA provides that anyone who knows or should have reasonably known that they are benefiting from the proceeds of unlawful activity may be charged and prosecuted for money laundering, so if they can prove that Malema knew or ought to have known that he was benefiting from the proceeds of unlawful activity, then they have a case... and a conviction carries a maximum fine of R100M or 30 years....
m1si2zi3nzo4
The cart has to be placed before the horse. An 'act' of 'money-laundering' has to be committed, first, and as you are wont to say; 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'. Then those 'who may have reasonably known...blah; blah.. can be identified, and tried in the 'public' space. You would be more familiar with the latter, again.
All post-authoritarian regimes (African) have legal and institutional safeguards in place, preventing the misuse of security and intelligence against domestic political opponents. But they do so only when the 'balance of forces' is not in their favour. As soon as they entrench themselves in power, and control all its levers, then they pass themselves broad mandates and sweeping powers to protect their dictatorial regimes against their own people. Research shows how they use the newly-acquired powers, to "suppress political opposition, to prevent any kind of demonstration and to eliminate leaders of labour unions, the media, political parties and other civil society organisations". We have seen how swiftly 'national security' changed to 'state security', and 'safety and security' turned into dreadful 'police' definition.
Research clearly cautions that terms like 'national', instead of 'state' enable parliamentarians" (representatives of the people, not party) to "become directly involved in the process of discussing vital national security interests". A definition "adds legitimacy to the intelligence practices undertaken in the pursuit of the legally addressed national security interests". A legally-defined term helps to clearly define the "aspects of national security", and thus help to "protect a nation against the politicisation and downright abuses of its intelligence services".
Intelligence and other security ministers are a regular feature in protest actions and workers strikes, as the Marikana massacre demonstrated. These agencies see the nation as accountable to them, and not the other way round. Hence they want an information bill, to hold the whole national security concept hostage to their 'state security'. And the whole nation is still keeping its pretentious smile, dryly, though.
staren
I think we're arguing at cross purposes... and the reason for such legislation is neither here nor there.
The point I'm trying to make is that in practical terms, and in terms of our current legislation, i.e the Prevention of Organised Crime Act of 1998, anyone who knowingly or reasonably should ought to have known that they are benefiting from the proceeds of crime may be charged with money laundering.
This is not my interpretation of the the law - it is the law, and as with FICA, it is quite clear to this regard. So to that end if they can prove that he knowingly or should have known that the money he was receiving was obtained via fraudulent means (i.e fraudulent tenders), then they have a clear case...
MicaParis
The POCA and FICA notion will be squashed by any criminal law specialist on proving the case beyond ''reasonable doubt'' not on balance of ''probabilities''!
M1si2zi3nzo4 is right the problem is not to establish the truth in terms of POCA and FICA but to establish or ''manufacture'' prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed which is going to be a ''huge mountain to climb'' for the state brigades. It is very easy to spot corruption, fraud and money-laundering but ''proving them beyond reasonable doubt’’ can be something impossible to achieve. The reason being that when this politicians are committing fraud and corruption they follow due processes of the law and legally when you try to catch them, you find them having followed the procedures and it is nothing but impossible to proof the ''influence'' factors that they used to fix tenders or accept kick backs especially if they have businesses which bring in profit daily, it is very difficult to catch them and lawyers even make that worse!
The Malema case is going to be the same as the John Block case, (the reigning ANC Chairperson in Northern Cape)they had been chasing behind him for a long time, having all the information that he fixed tenders fraudulently but had been unable to prove that ‘’beyond reasonable doubt’’ it is not easy especially if there is no party to the corrupt activities who is willing to turn state witness and John Block charges are about to be dropped.
Remember ‘’machine generated’’ evidence and expert evidence does not proof a case beyond reasonable doubt but only help in proceedings we need ‘’real evidence’’ to crack a case like that and that will take a perpetrator or accessory to the proceeding to turn state witness in order to nail the main target, the question is who will sacrifice so much to do so and what if the state charge him / her with a different crime/charge after acquittal as a state witness as a trap, knowing that we are playing political dirty games!? If this is the ''only'' ''thing'' the state is having on Juju than they are ''playing games'' and have got no clue what they are doing unless if this is just a start/ first phase as Mctosh Polela has said.
mzansi-wanda
My prima facie view is that these charges were not brought by our legally weak NPA but senior legal advise extraneous the NPA.
If Zuma (God forbid for SA's sake) retains his possesion in Mangaung, Julius as some would say "is in die k.a.k.
Just confine yourself to s6,7 and 8.
MicaParis
Pinning all your hope on those sections 6, 7 and 8 of POCA will be a complete fatal suicide as the ''law'' is very broad and technically tricky if Juju had hired an intelligent criminal law specialist. There is a notion in law called ''legal interrelations'' as such relying on certain sections of legislation is like ''putting all your eggs in one basket'' what if it gets broken!? Those sections might prove to be useless if there can be a ‘’deviating point of law’’ in terms of Criminal Procedure Act or Criminal Act including may be to a certain extant Police Act on tampering with evidence. Criminal cases are not like Civil or Constitutional cases, they can be very tricky and relying on one instrument for relief can be very dangerous! There can be cases and regulations which can overshadow the POCA and deviate the adjudication of the case to a certain legal point beyond the reach of POCA, for instance, seeing how the ''big fish'' Juju is how about if the issue turn constitutional by technical means, the POCA will not help in those circumstances. The strategy can only work if inexperienced lawyers are given the case to handle not specialists that Malema have an ability to hire!
staren
correct me if I'm wrong but our legal standard - at least in terms of POCA - not require the case to be proven on a balance of probabilities or preponderance of the evidence, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, as per American jurisprudence?
i_stub_born
Rhetorica
Posted 234 days agostaren
Posted 234 days agoi_stub_born
Posted 234 days ago"""""The people's president remain unshaken by desperate tactics of the regime. """"""
"""....... Zuma has lost the dignity to govern and to lead the ANC and he should be replaced in Mangaung by people who can inspire confidence in the masses of our people to advance our national democratic revolution.......""""
Malema and Zuma are the products of the same origin: the ANC huge cesspit...........
There are no leaders inside the corrupt organization. It seems everyone is involved in crooked deals now...........It is difficult to imagine a Mandela had emerged from such thick corrupt Mafia, but it also seems his generation was impotent to clear all the weed and mould that grew when they were in exile......
Malema 'are' and 'were' corrupt and arrogant demagogue before Polokwane and after that.....Whether "they" should have been dealt with before and not until this "Zuma chance" came, becomes also irrelevant. "They" have to be brought to justice all the same...........
All the black 'magnates' that mushroomed after BEE, political favoritism and strong influences inside the ANC have not proved to be financial geniuses, Otherwise why were they not put in charge of the financial management of the country and allowed to turn the post-apartheid structures to flourish and expand to the benefit of ALL citizens..???
Zuma was and is an inefficient, high-libido, senile and greedy element before and after Mandela, only he improved himself with time...For as long as he is in power is a cancer eroding the carcass of the organizaation............
i_stub_born
Posted 234 days ago"iol.co.za/news/politics/citizens-missing-in-action-ramphele-1.1391194"
Thespear
Posted 233 days ago