Jacob Zuma is back on his schtick about being ready to prove his innocence in court. More specifically he says that the delays in his day in court coming about have nothing to do with him.
These statements triggered me to review a post I wrote some time back but kept as draft...
Jacob Zuma has very publicly asked for his day in court to prove his innocence regarding corruption charges laid against him.
Since then he appears to have exerted, and continues to exert, considerable effort to keep himself from having his day in court and to restrict what evidence is available for presentation on that day in court.
To me this seems at odds with his declared desire to prove his innocence.
My understanding of South African law is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, in a court of law, a person is either found guilty or not guilty, unless charges are dropped.
Is there a difference between being presumed innocent and being found not guilty, because, in either case, the charges couldn't be proven satisfactorily.
Where am I heading with this?
Jacob Zuma declared that he wants the opportunity to prove his innocence. While, to me at least, his actions look a lot more like someone who is trying his damnedest to prevent anything that might prove his guilt or possibly expose some other undisireable information about his doings from coming into the court's or the public's eyes and ears.
I would like to think that if Jacob Zuma was truly innocent he would hauling out every bit of evidence that he could to show that he is unsullied by any impropiety.
And what has he produced in that regard? Think hard.
So I wonder, if Jacob Zuma is found not guilty on his day in court, what is the likelihood that he will have proven his innocence beyond reasonable doubt rather than that his accusers were not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment