Zuma has created a new Disbelief

Watching the spokesman for the National Prosecuting Authority state so positively that the charges against former employee Glynnis Breytenbach were not politically motivated has brought to the notice of many South Africans that President Jacob Zuma has injected a new element into the relationship between the public and the Government.  The spokesman stated that “We have taken an Oath of Office and we don’t engage in political actions”.  There can be no doubt that the statement, while it may be correct and true in relation to the present case, would be an outright lie when applied to the actions of the NPA in the past. 

Witness the unexplained withdrawal of 783 criminal charges against Jacob Zuma, clearing the way for him to become President, creating suspicions that were enhanced when the NPA failed to comply with a High Court Order to hand over the tapes recording conversations in that regard.  The fact is that Zuma’s conduct, admitted by him to be in breach of his Oath of Office and of the Constitution, has created a firm disbelief in the value of that Oath of Office and any statement made to assert the meaning of it. 

The public now believes firmly that the example that Zuma has set, of disregarding the Oath of Office whenever he chooses, is followed by his minions.  That belief was reinforced by the ludicrous ‘findings’ of the Minister of Police that the fire pool was actually a fire pool, not the luxurious swimming pool that the spectators could clearly see it to be.  The Minister of Police has admitted that he lied, that he made ‘findings’ in breach of his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and to protect the assets of the State, because he was instructed to do so  by the President, that he was ‘following orders’.  That statement put him firmly in the ranks of war criminals, men who proved themselves to be evil, and demonstrated that the Oath of Office is viewed by the ANC cadres only as a necessity to gain and hold the lucrative offices they need to carry out their depredations.  It is not the sacred and binding oath that the Constitution intended it to be, and it is no indication of the intention of the man taking it to protect the provisions of the Constitution, unless that happens to be convenient.  The loyalty to the man, and to the flow of benefits he confers, overrides the terms of the oath and of the Constitution.  Jacob Zuma made that clear in a public speech, in which he stated that his love of the ANC supersedes that for the country and, presumably, that for the requirements of his office.  The Oath of Office is considered by the State President and his minions to be just one of the preconditions to the gaining of great wealth, to flow from the (in their minds) unlimited funds of the State.  It is not sacred, or is it binding on their consciences.

The worst of the situation is that the body of the ANC, by its unquestioning support of these men, has shown convincingly that they subscribe wholeheartedly to the new standard set by their leader.  The only way for them to demonstrate that they are the good, honest man and women that the voters believed them to be would be to impeach the President.  We all know that will not happen.  The President and the ANC are all of the same class.

The public has received the message.  The citizens now know that the easiest way to detect a lie is to determine who spoke the words.  The public knows now that it cannot trust the statement of any member of Government, and particularly if the statement is reinforced by reference to that sacred Oath of Office.

It will take huge persuasion and proof by example for people to believe any member of Government in the future.  Thank you for that, Mr. President.  You have achieved a reversal of the belief in our leadership that Nelson Mandela spent 27 years to build up.