Now that Zuma has been elected ANC President it is abvious that he “is our president in waiting” [Fikile Mbalula] (my favourite cause I’m a paparazzi & dependent on his loud mouth), if I were Thabo Mbeki I would call an early election therefore passing on the thrown to my (undesirable) successor.
Why: I don’t see Mbeki & Jacob Zuma working together, one will have to remember that Mbeki will have a choice between doing what Zuma as ANC president tells him to do or defy that and do as He (President of the SA) thinks it’s best for the country (and his legacy yes his legacy)…
The Zuma charges
He’s finally been charged:
…Fourteen charges have now been added, including the crime of racketeering. The essence of the racketeering charge is that Zuma, Thint and Shaik effectively formed an enterprise (Nkobi Investments) that existed because of their alleged corrupt deeds.
The rest of the new charges are one count of money laundering and 12 counts of fraud — two relate to his alleged non-declaration of benefits to Parliament and Cabinet, one to him allegedly lying to Parliament and the rest concern tax evasion by not revealing his payments from Shaik to the South African Revenue Service.
The addition of racketeering as the “umbrella charge” means Zuma is no longer viewed as the outsider politician who was lured by independent entities into accepting bribes. The state now argues that he was intimately part of the corrupt enterprise and even refers to him as an “employee” or “associate” of Nkobi Investments.
This is a significant change of strategy by the NPA, which could now find it easier to show the court the “bigger picture” of Zuma, Thint and Shaik’s alleged scheme.
To prove racketeering the state will first have to show the existence of the corrupt enterprise. The new indictment argues that the Nkobi group was an “ostensibly legitimate group of companies” whose main business was to form joint ventures with foreign and local businesses.
The enterprise, however, had very little to offer “and relied primarily on Shaik’s much-heralded ‘political connectivity’ to attract partners”, the NPA argues. The enterprise’s objects include “cultivating and maintaining” corrupt relationships with politicians, paying these politicians, concealing these payments to the government and maintaining the appearance that the enterprise was a legitimate business.
To convict Zuma on racketeering charges, the state will have to prove at least two offences (“racketeering acts”) that were committed within 10 years of each other. The NPA has 1 582 “chances” to do this — all the other charges against Zuma, including every payment made by Shaik or one of his companies, are described in the indictment as racketeering acts.
Since racketeering relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, it might be easier for the state to submit hearsay evidence…