Publication: Mail and Guardian Issued: Date: 2009-04-08 Reporter: Niren Tolsi

Zuma's Mastery in Evading Questions

 

Publication 

Mail and Guardian
Date

2009-04-08
Reporter Niren Tolsi
Web Link www.mg.co.za


ANC president Jacob Zuma’s appearance at a press conference after KwaZulu-Natal High Court judge president Vuka Tshabalala took six minutes to rubber stamp the NPA’s decision to drop charges against him, remained a study of Zuma’s predilection for copping out of full disclosure when questioned -- despite his constant protestations that he has nothing to hide.

Over the years Zuma has mastered various mechanisms -- self-deprecation, jocular deflection, bullying, playing the country bumpkin, the need of a hearing aid and blaming the media -- when evading questions. This is made easier when the arena of press conferences are ruled with an iron fist, hampering follow-up questions or those requiring clarity.

When asked how his legal team had obtained copies of the tape recordings of conversations between then Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy and former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka, Zuma referred the question to his lawyer, Michael Hulley.

Hulley’s response: “To where those tapes had actually emanated from, you’re mindful of the fact that an attorney has professional privilege and under those circumstances I am not at liberty to divulge any of that”. The sound of the door being slammed shut to that line of enquiry was accompanied by loud cheering and laughter from Zuma supporters like South African Communist Party general secretary Blade Nzimande, Congress of South African Trde Unions general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, Minister of Transport Jeff Radebe and various other acolytes.

On whether Zuma could reveal knowledge of improprieties in the arms deal or possibly set up a judicial commission of inquiry after the elections, he took a club to the media: “I know that there is a saying that is moving in the media that I said I will expose people linked to the arms deal. I don’t remember where I said this; even the opposition have been repeating this. What I said here in Durban, I think I was appearing for the second time in the regional court … I said that one day I will say why I’ve been pursued as I have been -- I will talk one day.

“This has been twisted and spinned and spinned [sic] that I said I will expose people. Some people said that I will go down with people. I don’t know where [I will go down to] exactly. That is part of what imagination emerges almost to become the truth to some people … This is again, one of the problems that I have with the media. They don’t even come and try and check and verify it. They just take the story from another report and politicians ride on the same wave. Because that is what I am hearing: that Zuma must talk because he knows about the arms deal. When the arms deal happened I was here in the province, not in the national [government]. How would I know the details of what happened and the details that I must then expose? I think this has been another imagination. Another handkerchief that has been turned into a dove”.

While he chose to ignore whether his government would institute an inquiry into the arms deal, the ANC president’s response was disingenuous.

The Mail & Guardian reported in January that the ANC would also make representations to the NPA on why Zuma’s charges should be dropped. Two NEC members confirmed that part of the representations would be the ANC’s report on its internal investigation into the arms deal. As party president, Zuma is privy to this report.

ANC treasurer Mathews Phosa also told the M&G that the ANC would raise the issue of Zuma being singled out: “There’s a strong feeling that other characters were involved and should go to court as well,” Phosa said.

On whether Zuma would reveal where he was on the weekend of March 10 and 11 2000 *1 -- his former financial advisor Schabir Shaik during his corruption trial confirmed that he had set up a meeting with Zuma and Alain Thetard, former head of Thompson CSF’s (Thales) South Africa division to facilitate a R500 000-per-annum bribe on March 10 -- Zuma responded by saying: “Where I was on the 11th and 12th *2 … this question has always been asked wrongly *3 and everybody has been following it. It is an issue that relates to the substance of the matter and I answer this question all the time in Parliament … it has always been asked wrongly and that is not my business, to help people ask the correct question. Some people have even won an award on this wrong question.”

Such opaqueness may work in personal defence of an individual who increasingly refers to himself in the third person, but whether it will facilitate the accountable governance of South Africa is doubted.

 

STATEMENT BY RAENETTE TALJAARD, MP

DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE SPOKESPERSON ON THE ARMS DEAL

 

 
DA TO QUESTION ZUMA ON ALLEGED THETARD MEETING(S) AND CORRUPTION

 The DA finds it unacceptable that Deputy President Jacob Zuma refuses to break his silence about meetings he allegedly held with Mr Alain Thetard, the former head of the Southern African division of Thomson CSF (now Thales), during which he allegedly solicited payments in return for protection of Thales during the course of the arms probe. Reports in the Mail & Guardian this week suggest that the investigative noose around the Deputy President is tightening.

It is regrettable that the Scorpions had to resort to a subpoena to obtain the Deputy President's banking records. The Deputy President should have demonstrated his good faith and innocence by opening his accounts for a voluntary forensic audit and making the findings of that audit public, as called for by the DA.

The allegations against Deputy President Zuma are very serious and a warrant for arrest has been issued for Mr Thetard whilst Mr. Schabir Shaik – the other party present at the alleged meetings in South Africa and France – is facing serious criminal charges in South Africa.

 The Deputy President faces a simple challenge. Either confirm or deny that any of these meetings took place. If these meetings did not take place, there is no reason for the Deputy President to maintain a stoic silence about the allegations. They should be dismissed out of hand. If, however, the meetings did take place, the Deputy President has many subsequent questions to answer about his conduct and his alleged interests in the procurement itself.

The DA believes that, at the very least, the Deputy President must come clean on the Thetard meetings. The failure by the Deputy President to respond to questions e-mailed to his office asking him to confirm or deny the Thetard meeting(s) and the failure by his spokesperson to return calls in this regard must be condemned in the strongest terms for its failure to account to the people of South Africa. The DA will table questions in Parliament calling on Deputy President Zuma to come clean.

In addition, the Presidency must answer why it has failed to institute a Commission of Inquiry into this matter and into the broader question of Mr Zuma's links to Mr Schabir Shaik, given the latter's extensive business interests and the ever-present question of conflicts of interest that remains unresolved.


[Parliamentary questions to the Deputy President and President appended below]

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION:             RAENETTE TALJAARD 082 450 6810
MEDIA LIAISON:                              ANTHONY HAZELL 082 787 4002

 

Question for Oral Reply


Ms. R. Taljaard to ask the Deputy President

Whether (1) the Deputy President has had any meetings on 11 March 2000 and/or on any other date *4 with Mr Alain Thetard, former head of Thomson CSF's (now Thales') Southern Africa division and/or Mr Schabir Shaik in Durban or elsewhere in South Africa and/or Mauritius and/or France?

If so, (i) where did the meeting(s) take place; (ii) what was discussed at the meeting(s), (iii) what was the outcome of the meeting(s), (iv) were any agreements made for payments to be made or any undertakings given for protection for Thomson CSF/Thales from the investigation by the Joint Investigating Team probing the Strategic Defence Procurement during the course of the meeting(s)?

(2) Whether the Deputy President has any business interests and/or shareholdings in either Thales and/or the Nkobi Group and/or African Defence Systems (ADS). If so, (i) what is the nature of the interest, (ii) how was it acquired and (iii) when was it acquired?

(3) Whether he will make a statement on the matter?

 

Question for Oral Reply
Ms. R. Taljaard to ask the President

Whether (1) he agrees with the letter written by his advisor Ms M. Gumbi dated 6 December 2002, drafted in response to a request by the Democratic Party to the Presidency to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to probe allegations against Deputy President Jacob Zuma, in which Ms M. Gumbi states that Commissions of Inquiry are not appointed on the basis of mere allegations and that there will therefore be no Commission of Inquiry to probe the serious allegations of corruption and bribery that have been levelled against South Africa's Deputy President Jacob Zuma,

(2) this advice is consistent with the approach adopted by the Presidency when Mr Kevin Wakeford made allegations against key market players for the role their conduct may have played in the collapse on the Rand in 2001,and the Myburgh Commission was appointed subsequently on the basis of mere allegations,

(3) he considers it appropriate to have a cloud of suspicion hanging unresolved over the second highest political office in South Africa tasked with the leadership of the campaign for moral renewal and regeneration,

(4) whether he will make a statement on the matter?

 

BC-RPT-PR-DP-ZUMA-WRITTEN-REPLY
PR-DP-ZUMA-WRITTEN-REPLY (CHANGING SLUG)
SAPA PR WIRE SERVICE - SAPA PR WIRE SERVICE - SAPA PR WIRE SERVICE
SAPA PR -- ZUMA REPLY TO QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY FROM THE DA


 
   Issued by: Office of the Presidency

   Attention: News Editor

   For immediate release: 
   .
   12 March 2003
   .
   ********************* MEDIA ADVISORY
***********************
   .
   PLEASE FIND BELOW A REPLY FROM DEPUTY PRESIDENT ZUMA, TO A
   QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE.
   .
   Lakela Kaunda
   Spokesperson to the Deputy President
   .
   THE PRESIDENCY: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
   Private Bag X1000, Pretoria, 0001
   .
   NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
   .
   QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY
   .
   QUESTION NUMBER: 110
   .
   DATE PUBLISHED: 14 FEBRUARY 2003
   .
   DATE REPLIED: 12 MARCH 2003
   .
   Ms R Taljaard (DP) to ask the Deputy President:
   .
   (1) Whether he had any meetings on 11 March 2000 and/or
on any other
specified dates *5 with Mr Alain Thetard, former head of
Thompson SCF's (now Thales) Southern Africa division and/or Mr Shabir
Shaik in Durban or elsewhere in South Africa and/or Mauritius and/or
France; if so, (a) where did the meeting or meetings take place, (b) what
was discussed at these meetings and (c) what was the outcome of such
meetings;
   .
   (2) Whether any agreements were reached during the course of
the meetings for payments to be made and/or any undertakings given for
protection for Thompson/Thales' from the investigation by the Joint
Investigation Team probing the Strategic Defence Procurement; if so, what
are the relevant details;
   .
   (3) Whether he or any member of his family has any business
interests and/or shareholdings in either Thales and/or the Nkobi Group
and/or African Defence Systems (ADS). If so, (a) what is the nature of
the interests and (b)(i) how and (ii) when were they acquired; . (4)
Whether he will make a statement on the matter?
   .
   N116E
   .
   1.
I did not meet Alain Thetard on 11 March 2000 in Durban or anywhere else
in South Africa.

        
During my tenure as Member of the Executive Council for Economic Affairs
and Tourism in KwaZulu Natal I have met with representatives of Thompsons
SCF as well as with other companies from, amongst others, the United
States, Germany, Britain, Malaysia and Russia, that were interested in
investing in South Africa and in particular in KwaZulu Natal. Some of
these companies have requested to see me even after my tenure as MEC to
brief me on the how the investments they had made were progressing. In
this regard in my capacity as Deputy President of the Republic of South
Africa, and previously as the MEC for Economic Affairs and Tourism in
KwaZulu Natal, I have interacted with a large number of people but am
unable to personally remember the names of all of them. Alain Thetard may
have been part of one of the Thompsons SCF delegations.

        As I have
stated on numerous occasions, I have known Shabir Shaik for many years.
He is a family friend and comrade. I have had numerous meetings with him
over the years.

        I have
never discussed with Mr Shaik or anyone else for that matter, the issue
of protecting Thales or any other company or individual from the Joint
Investigating Team's investigation into the Strategic Defence
Procurement.
   .
   2. No
   .
   3. I have no business interests and/or shareholdings in
either Thales, the Nkobi Group or African Defence System. I have no
knowledge of any member of my extended family having any such interests
and or shareholdings either.
   .
   4. I have heard from media reports about the allegations
that I requested money in return for support or protection to Thompson
SCF (now Thales). The media reports also state that the matter is being
investigated by the Directorate of Special Operations (the Scorpions).

The Directorate of Special Operations has however never approached me for
comment. At my request, my attorneys, approached the National Director of
Public Prosecutions when the allegations first surfaced late last year,
to enquire as to whether I was indeed being investigated. The National
Director refused to confirm or deny that such an investigation was taking
place. I am therefore gathering most of the information in this matter
from the media.
 
Source : Ends /cvm 
Date : 12 Mar 2003 19:27 OrigID : LP6274



 
 
*1*2     This is the kind of arsehole lying president that we are going to get, courtesy of a deceitful, dishonest and opportunistic NPA.

The meeting was diarised for Saturday 11th March. It may have happened on Friday 10th or there may have been meetings on both days.

But that the meeting is an evidential fact.

Zuma lied about this is a formal written answer to a formal written question in Parliament.


*3      The written question was not perfectly posed, but it was good enough for purpose and legal sound.

Zuma's answer was a lie for which he was charged with defrauding Parliament.

The complainant was a Member of Parliament, Raenette Taljaard. The NPA only processed the charge.

On what basis can it validly withdraw this charge?

On what basis does Leonard McCarthy's buffoonery invalid this charge?

What a bunch of sickos, sick ous?

The entire management of the NPA above the rank of Deputy Director should resign for this debacle.


*4*5    Spot the difference? Zuma :
lied:
twisted the question;
twisted his answers.
What a beautiful Accused this would have been to cross-examine.

What a beautiful Accused this will be to cross-examine.