The SACP is not averse to criticism and debate, but it must be based on fact and not misrepresentations and building of straw persons as Friedman’s column of 19 April 2006 does.
Friedman’s article is based on the media’s oft-repeated but wrong assumption that Zuma is only supported by the SACP and COSATU. The Alliance 10-a-side on 25 August 2005 said, “The Alliance reiterates that Cde Zuma continues to enjoy the full and unreserved support of the Alliance and each of its component organisations and members”.
The July 2005 ANC NGC expressed its full confidence and support for Cde Zuma. And nothing has changed. This begs the question as to why media and its analysts insist on separating the ANC from its allies on the question of support for Zuma. Could it be that they know something else that we do not know?
It is falsification of the truth that it was the SACP that insisted on payment of Zuma’s legal fees by the state. It is the same 25 August Alliance meeting that urged “Cde Zuma’s lawyers to approach the state to cover the costs of his legal defence, since he is facing allegations that emanate from his role as a public office-bearer.”
Apart from these factual misrepresentations it is important to restate the SACP’s principled stance on the Zuma matter. The SACP stands firmly behind the principle that no one is above the law, but at the same time everybody must be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise through a credible judicial process. It was for this reason that we objected to the pronunciation of a prima facie case against Zuma, but without charging. The SACP also objected to the holding of a ‘confidential’ press briefing by the NPA which possibly violated Zuma’s rights. In any case no one goes to court already guilty; except on a prima facie basis.
Readers also need to be reminded that the Public Protector, whose report was endorsed by Parliament, found that Cde Zuma’s rights were indeed violated. Concerns have been raised that government itself has some explaining to do, especially on the failure to adequately follow up the recommendations of the Public Protector and the findings of the Hefer Commission.
To remind readers, Judge Hefer concluded on leaks from the NPA “It is beyond doubt that leaks did occur. Such a state of affairs of affairs cannot be tolerated.“In a country such as ours where human dignity is a basic constitutional value and every person is presumed to be innocent until he or she is found guilty, this is wholly unacceptable. The Prosecuting Authority Act was not enacted for nothing and as long as someone in the National Director’s office keeps flouting the prohibition against the disclosure of information, one cannot be assured that the Prosecuting Authority is being used for the purpose for which it was intended.”
Last years’ Scorpions raids into Zuma’s homes and his lawyers’ offices, which were both declared illegal by two High Court judgements, were also strongly condemned by the same Alliance August meeting.
The SACP is agreed that all the above set very dangerous legal, if not political, precedents and, if unchecked, can lead to abuse of state organs for political ends, and have created the widely held perception that Zuma is being politically persecuted.
The SACP is of the view that our stance on abuse of Zuma’s rights is of the same order as that of the allegations against Ramaphosa, Sexwale and Phosa a few years back. Ours is a principled stance which will uphold irrespective of who is involved, just as we daily challenge light court sentences for farmers who often brutally assault or kill black farmworkers.
The SACP is in alliance with the ANC and COSATU and not their individual leaders. We also have our own independent working class programmes which are well known. That is why we, in our own right, enjoy the support of millions of workers and the poor of our country. The question of who becomes the next ANC President is not a matter for the SACP, but of the ANC, and the ANC alone.
In respecting the sub judice rule, the SACP has decided not to comment on the evidence before Zuma’s rape trial until the trial is over. Save to say that nothing has been said in the rape trial, either by the accused or the complainant, changes our stance on HIV/AIDS. Dare we remind all that some six years ago we were, after all, one of the organisations who boldly and publicly defended the scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS, when such doubt was thrown into the public arena?
Blade Nzimande
General Secretary
SACP