Sponsored Links:
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS
President Jacob Zuma.
President Jacob Zuma has moved to insulate himself from Willem Heath, the long-serving ally he controversially appointed to lead the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) just 13 days ago.
Presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj – himself under fire for his alleged involvement in arms deal tender-related irregularities – said Zuma had asked Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe to look into comments Heath made during an interview with City Press.
Heath accused former president Thabo Mbeki of masterminding the fraud, corruption, money laundering, racketeering and rape charges – and the ultimately failed prosecutions that stemmed from some of these charges – against Zuma between 2005 and 2009.
Radebe has been asked to “prioritise” the matter so that it can be “brought to conclusion without delay”. However, in a move arguably designed to distance Zuma from the saga, the Presidency also said it was “abundantly clear” that Heath made the offending comments “in his personal capacity”.
“The Presidency and the government in general have nothing whatsoever to do with the comments made by Heath,” said Maharaj.
The presidential spin doctor also stressed that Zuma ordered a probe into the comments “before any complaint from any quarter, because he was concerned about the contents of the interview”.
“Given the serious nature of the allegations, the president announced his decision to the public… that immediately when he became aware of the City Press newspaper article, he had instructed his office to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the Heath interview,” Maharaj explained.
Radebe has since confirmed that Heath has handed him “information” on the matter. “At the outset (Heath) strongly indicated that the interview was conducted in his personal capacity and not in his professional capacity as head of the SIU,” Radebe is reported to have told the Sunday Times this weekend.
Heath, himself a former judge, also suggested during the City Press interview that Judge Hilary Squires of the Durban High Court erred in finding Zuma’s former friend and financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, guilty of corruption in 2005 – a verdict later upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
Judge Squires sentenced Shaik to 15 years in prison for, among other things, paying Zuma R1.2 million to further their “mutually beneficial symbiosis” – a political, personal and commercial relationship later described by the registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal as an “overall corrupt relationship”. Shaik was also found to have solicited bribes on Zuma’s behalf from French arms manufacturer Thomson-CSF.
However, Zuma’s role in this “corrupt” relationship was never tested in court. The on-again-off-again corruption case against Zuma was eventually dropped by then national director of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe just weeks before the national elections in 2009, paving the way for Zuma to eventually become president.
Heath’s claim that Mbeki “dictated” to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) during its investigations against Zuma has prompted an angry response from the man who led the NPA for much of the time in question, Bulelani Ngcuka.
After telling Independent Newspapers last week that he was enjoying his retirement and would not be dragged into the fracas, Ngcuka addressed an “open letter” to Heath this weekend in which he slammed the SIU boss for making “scurrilous” accusations.
“(N)ow that you have been restored to the position you have consistently believed is your God-given right to hold (Heath also led the SIU in 2000), you triumphantly return to take revenge against me, my wife (former deputy president Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka) and former president Mbeki by resorting to the perpetuation of slander, innuendo and defamation.
“That there is no basis for the allegations matters not to you, as your mantra appears to be that such conduct is justified by your objective of vilification and destruction of those you see as your enemies, real or perceived,” he wrote.
Ngcuka went on to challenge Heath to provide proof of his allegations.
“There is now no more reason for you to sulk and withhold such evidence. I also hope you will be willing to take the witness stand, testify on oath regarding any such evidence as you may have and subject yourself to an examination on the truthfulness of your allegations,” the retired prosecutor said, adding that he reserved his right to pursue the matter in court.
Meanwhile, the DA has welcomed the news that Zuma is looking into Heath’s comments, but insists that the SIU boss should be suspended pending the outcome of this process.
“To have the head of the SIU making serious allegations against senior public figures without offering any proof, and questioning the judgments of three courts, is irresponsible and shows a lack of judgment.
“In addition, it raises concerns about his ability to act impartially. Given that these are essential requirements for the head of the SIU, it is clear that (Heath) cannot occupy it,” DA MP Debbie Schafer said.
She has also urged Zuma to consider the potential conflict of interest arising from Heath’s continued involvement in his private investigating firms. Heath told City Press last week that he had accepted the SIU job on condition that he would not be required to give up his private business interests – a condition to which Zuma appears to have agreed.
Heath could not be reached for comment yesterday, but told Independent Newspapers in the week that he did not think the furore would cost him his job.
“No, not at all. It’s rather typical to be on the receiving end of comments and newspaper reports. It’s not going to put my job in danger,” he said. - Political Bureau
|
|
Anonymous, wrote
Our President seems to be making one blunder after the other. I hope the opposition is noting all these. The next elections are just around the corner in 2014.
Musikwudd, wrote
AS PERSONS CHANGE DRASTICALLY OVER DECADES, SO DO ORGANISATIONS..... When the so called `revolutionary` comes to power - he or she instantly becomes reactionary ! Power corrupts those who feel attracted by it.......
FredM- GBay, wrote
@ “@ Frank Harty 09:33”. Why inculpate Frank Harty for Anonymous 07:50 am’s comment? Try playing good chess with this type of lapsus! Then @ “@ Frank Hardy 09:30” A rather presumptuous initial sentence against Frank, who expresses perfect logic; practically ‘derided’ by you. Where is the law written that the accused – Mbeki in this case - cannot defend himself by producing counter-proof against Heath? Take a case very dear to my heart: A malicious ex-wife sets up a fake burglary without her knowledge of her ex-husband being remotely abroad. The objects involved bear her ex-husband’s finger-prints, but his passport, produced by him, as the accused, subsequently proves an anachronism. Isn’t that counter-proof? It’s my conviction that if I were to agree with you that the burden of proof rested entirely on the accuser, we’d both be wrong! The impression is that of ‘distortion of perception’. This would be inequitable towards Frank!
@Frank Harty, wrote
Why would Zuma attempt to ISOLATE himself? INSULATE is correct. He is trying to protect himself from the consequences of a Heath hitting the fan. Insulation protects
@Frank Harty, wrote
Your understanding of the justice system is flawed. The budden of proof rests with the person who makes the acussation, not the accused. Zuma's rape case was complicated, not by the prosecution, but the inherent difficulty in all rape cases, especially when there are only two people involved. Both admit there was intercourse and both admit that the lady stayed over the night and was given taxi fair in the morning. There was enough evidence to say rape may have occured, but there was enough doubt that the sexual engagement was consentual. The state could not presented a better case than they did and I therefore think you are being unfair in your assessment of the prosecution in the case. The NPA definitely has a strong case against Zuma on the basis that Shaik was found guilty for corrupting Zuma. The evidence led was about payments made to Zuma in return for Zuma offering favours and this was proven and this alone is enough to prosecute Zuma. I also think you misunderstood Heath's claims. Heath is claiming that the charges both corruption and rape were instigated by Mbeki. He is not saying that Mbeki is responsible for them being withdrawn.
Sly, wrote
@Tinyiko, wrote
I know your comments cannot be serious because no head of state has a right to sign into law, a law not presented through parliament and one that would obviously be unconstitutional. However, I do share your frustration with Zuma advisers, especially the ever incompetent Jeff Radebe. How a country's justice could be left to the hands of a failed Minister of Transport and other failed ventures amazes me. The guy is worse than Zuma. Thank goodness he is not in the running for a senior position in the ANC, otherwise this country would be far worse than it is under Zuma. All Radebe's influences on Zuma have failed spectacularly and one wonders whether Radebe has a hold on Zuma. Instead of firing everyone else, Jeff Radebe is the buffoon that needs to be sent to pasture.
Lacri, wrote
God, he's sickening. He surrounds himself with his friends and allies, but doesn't hesitate to chuck them overboard if it serves his interests. If you're interested in being one of Zuma's "benefactors", take note - he'll take whatever you're offering and then trample you in the dirt and stand on your head to avoid sinking into the slime.
Anonymous, wrote
I am not sure he is warry. The judge is doing exactly what he was hired to do: present JZ as a victim in the run up to Free State, investigate the Mbeki camp, cause havoc in the Justice system and render the country ungovernable for the ANC to be able to play with the Constitutional rights and strangle more and more of our freedoms just lkie a pathon squezing life out of a meal. JZ guys have made so much damage they need protection of which has to be institutionalized.
badballie, wrote
Heaths comments bring every judgement he has ever made as a judge into question, As an ex judge he should know better, this country doesn't need any more yes men, we are in the position we are in because of the ANC lapdogs and yes men.
Tinyiko, wrote
Zuma must go abroad,appoint Buthelezi as a stand-in President a for week so Buthelezi can sign the death penalty into law.And then we execute who-ever advices Zuma on which friends to keep because he is doing such a bad job at it.
Snot, wrote
Ya Heath, you are very confident that you will remain in your positon because of your friend Zuma. The world is watching and listening. Corruption has been more rife in Zumas tenure as a President than in Mbeki' time. And the corrupt never lost a days pay. For a former Judge to make such comments shows you lack intergrity and you are biased. Give the public proof of your allegations...
Anonymous, wrote
Frank Hartry, wrote
If Mbeki fails to sue Heath then perhaps some of the allegations may be true. Zuma was acquitted of the rape trial because of apparent police investigatory incompetence but he failed to defend himself in a South African court for hundreds of allegations of corruption. The charges were withdrawn under what can be termed as mysterious cicumstances when according to the MPA it had a very strong case. We the taxpayers who paid out millions of rands for Zuma's legal fees have never had the privelege of knowing the full reasons as to why the charges were withdrawn. The two alleged conspiritators have never been charged in court for their alleged offences against Zuma. The only way to get to the bottom of the whole rotten affair is to have an open enquiry. We South African surely have the right to know as to whether the allegation charges against the state president were really withdrawn as a result of a conspiracy organised by Mbeki or were the charges withdrawn because the NPA head and his colleagues were worried about losing their jobs when Zuma became the president that year.
Sello, wrote
Heath was brought back for a reason, and what we hear from him is not an accident. Thabo Mbeki seems to be a life support system for this regime, if you followed events closely you would see how every move was crafted to outsmart or outdo what Mbeki did. Someone is trying to portray himself as a victim, so that he can secure another dubious victory.
Joel, wrote
I am afraid our president is sometimes naive and is easily influenced. We know that Heath helped him when he was facing rape and corruption charges, and obviously he is forever thankful, which is a normal human reaction. Yet, the same Heath, when Jacob Zuma was fired as DP by President Mbeki came out openly to say that that was long overdue and that in a democracy JZ should have resigned on his own. The question is what did Heath know then that he seems to have conveniently forgotten. And the same Heath in act of self-preservation is now singing a new tune. It is also not very clear why Heath thinks he has got new information when he could only investigate cases referred to him. Does that mean that he had the tendency to exceed his mandate, something that he is perhaps likely to do again in an act of self-preservation.
Showing items 1 - 16 of 16
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Services
Buying a car has never been easy. Motoring.co.za contains a large database of car listings with a user friendly search.
Start searching today »
Business Directory
You are here: IOL / News / Special Features / The Zuma Era / Zuma wary after claims by Heath
We like to make your life easier
Mobile
Browse IOL on your phone at m.iol.co.za.
Newsletters
Subscribe to our newsletters. News delivered to your inbox!
Comment Guidelines