The SABC never miss the opportunity to report anything negative about Zuma - it is clear who they work for (definitely not the SA public). We are not impressed.
Mr Zikalala previously intimidated that Electoral Court got it right, I think SABC must broaden its base of experts, he sometimes appear to be getting caught with the factions
@@vjchabane9795 I will be lying if I say I hate Zuma. I feel the same way about him like I feel about Mbeki. I have lost respect for them in that when they lost power they became enemies of the movement. Both of them today they walk around and try to speak to people and all that weight of credentials they carry has disappeared. They are not respected anymore. All because they failed to read the crowd and wanted it all for themselves. We deserve better. But no hate, trust me.
When Theron took Ngqukayitobi to task during the hearing, you would say, hhayi Theron would be decending. Ngqukayitobi fought this one very hard to convince the 10 judges. Never trust the hearing when it comes to this. It's impressive for the country to conclude this before the election unlike the Americans with Trumpy Trump.
This nation LOVES politics, laws, cases, courts, appeals, .................. but cant create jobs.... learn from the foreign nationals who come to SA. they don't waste time on politics they make money n put food on the table..... We are too invested in Leaders, acts, sections of laws, rules, Politicking, Positions, Power, but dololo not a decent business can be started
Hmm, very true, couldn't agree more... Especially the brown suffering youth, we have extremely serious challenges and yet we are doing nothing about that.. We are concerned about political leaders...
If there's is one lawyer with a legitimate claim to pushing the boundaries of our legal system as we know it, it is Dali Mpofu. I agree with the concourt on this one, despite this being a politically charged case, and dali losing, it would have been a tall order to expect the CC to sustain an argument from the respondents which essentially proposes to limit its power to impose judgements which are of criminal consequence, the section of contention provided nothing to that effect, jurisprudence is devoid of that principle and logic frowns upon it. However, for dali to have dribbled the electoral court through his legal expertise to endorse such a legal radical argument is something to marvel.
1. Conn Court agreed to hear an appeal before the judgement had been released. They had an interest in the case. They wanted to decide it. Why? This effectively made them a party in the case and not judges. How could they have known that the reasons of the Electoral Court would be appealable? The only reason for the appeal was because they did not like the order given. If they did not like or agree with the order, how could they be impartial? 2. IEC was found to have lied. Indisputable evidence was presented. They decided to ignore that evidence on the technicality that new evidence cannot be presented on appeal. This was a distortion of the principle. The basis for this is that the accuser who fails to get a conviction against the defendant cannot produce new evidence on appeal. This principle was not intended to give license to lie to the court hoping that the lie will not be discovered on time. It was unconscionable for the Conn Court to overlook this when they had sentenced JZ to 15months for contempt. Which is greater contempt of court, silence or lying to the court? This deception by the IEC was so big that it warranted “departure from ordinary procedures.” 3. Judicial Branch violated separation of powers doctrine by deciding who can join Parliament before parliament had considered the question. 4. Presidential prerogative to remit sentences and pardon offenders is specifically to check judicial over-reach in extreme cases. If executive makes a mistake, the final decision goes to the people at election and they take the final decision. Taking this power away was extremely arrogant of the Conn Court. 5. Every difficult matter in a democracy must be decided by the people. Judicial elitism is the subject of many of Thomas Sowell’s writings. They think they know so much more than the people that they have the gumption to tell us we can vote for anyone we like, only, among the ones they approve!
@@MichaelKatide Rebuttals 1. Suggesting that the CC has prematurely sustained an appeal application is such a grave accusation which if was true, would plunge the country in anarchy. This point is not found anywhere in the papers of the respondents, therefore raising it here in order to rationalize your dissatisfaction with the decision is unfair and irrelevant. Judges of the CC were not parties in this matter but only adjudicators, the only one who had anticipated the inappropriateness of his standing on the bench and the apprehension of bias that would have stained this case was Zondo and he accordingly voluntarily recused himself. The points advanced by Zuma for the recusal of the mentioned justices were weak and couldn't stand scrutiny. 2 there has to be a distinction drawn between the effect and consequence of a legal provision. The fact that Zuma didn't raise all the issues that were relevant at the initial stages of this dispute and as a result was precluded from raising them on an appeal setting, is not the natural effect of the invoked technical provision, but the consequence of zuma's miscalculation. Just on the basis of logic, how does one appeal an issue upon which the lower court, from whence the matter emanates, has not pronounced? Even on the basis of logic, the issue doesn't stand. 3 nothing in the decision even remotely implicates the principle of the separation of power. Parliament, as the national legislative body enacted the Act that disqualifies Zuma, and the court is constitutionally designated as the interpretator of legislation. Just because the interpretation imputed on the enactment is unfavorable doesn't mean that the separation of powers is undermined. 4 the court aptly and succinctly distinguished between imposition of a sentence and execution of sentence. What the presidential remission affects is the latter not the former. As to Thomas sowell's sentiments about the judiciary, he is not wrong, but he misses the fact that there are only two systems of governance, parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy, I think he does a disservice to his readers by critiquing the constitutional democracy regime without providing a viable alternative which is devoid of the ails he identifies in the impugned one. 5 Democracy itself, which is basically the reign of the will of the majority, or shortly put, majoritarianism, has an element of limitations inhering within it. It is not as fair on the people as those whom it benefits the most project it, in fact it has a veiled element of dictatorship that it perpetuates that only the inquisitive and suspecting eye can detect. Thus, let us not be dubbed into believing that mechanisms and instrumentalities that are utilized to subvert the will of the dis-empowered majority are undemocratic, if they were, the system of democracy wouldn't cater for them. These ignominious and seemingly underhanded machineries are all the ails of democracy from the lower class' perspective and strengths of democracy from elitist's perspective,it just depends from which vantage point you are judging them. I appreciate your indulgence.
I think if ZUMA is really disqualified then the party must continue to take part in the election and select ZUMA second in charge, I think the ANC is scared becus a gap will fall from the ANC and they might loose this upcoming election and coalition in loosing parties is wrong.they should try again next time and convince the people but if u are ruled out u are out
These analysts have no appreciation of the law. They keep on insisting on special treatment for Zuma. For starters, that court adjudicated on contempt of court. What makes them conflicted to deal with what section 47 means and whether IEC is correct body to apply it. Zuma is passing, like many before him. He cant hold us hostage in our quest for application of law without fear or favor. We dont make laws for Zuma. He must follow the country's laws or face consequences. And he has; and we all have to learn from it.
How does the court of law works because it seems like it only favors the ones in power?? E.g retirement age is 60 but how old are most of the politicians in parliament???
@@user-zv8rn8nb8e The difference with politicians is that they are elected.by the public. The will or wishes of the people are protectes. Democracy as we know it is for the people by the people. The constitution was designed to not discriminate. It protects the right of individuals to stand for election to parliament if they qualify, meaning if they comply with section 47. So if you are very old and it can be proven that you are not of a sound mind you will be disqualified.
Do we now has a new judicial precedence that says we sentence you, you appeal here but we will not recuse ourselves. Why was there no appeal in the sentence and now Zuma told to appeal the latest ruling
@@travistea yeah it's seems you don't follow SA politics at large.... MK, beside all ramaphosa obstacles, they filled up Orlando stadium... And you are not reporting about it. People are not fools media is very bias... Have you reported about phalaphala?
@@sbusisondlovu2046Bunch of unemployed nobodies people bussed in to kiss the behinds of the corrupt. No plan to better this country, just demands for hand outs.
The Electoral Court's verdict was disingenuous, it simply kicked the can down the road to the Concourt. This is worrying trend, as lower courts don't want to take a firm stand in high-profile cases or but heads with the likes of Dali Mpofu! Even for a layman, Sect 47 of the Constitution is very clear. If these judges are not sanctioned for dereliction and abdication of duties, the Concourt shall be clogged up with simple matters that should have been adjudicated in the lower courts!
@@samkunene7521 the Constitution - Section 47 (1)(e) is very clear. It went to the Constitutional Court to confirm what was plainly said in it. The conviction was not appealable because there is no higher court than the Constitutional Court who passed it down.The Constitutional Court has the final say on any Section of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996). The point of clarity was if the part of appeal applied to the former president which was plain that it did not. Anything handed down by the Constitutional Court is final. Only a higher court can hear a case from a lower court, for example: the Supreme Court of Appeal can hear an appeal from the High Court but not the other was around. It is a senario that the drafters of the Constitution never thought would happen. I hope this information helped.
No one is above the law, when you find yourself on the wrong side of the law, the law will be against you so with the case of Jacob Zuma he was on the wrong side of the law and that’s the price he needs to pay
@@mrb2643 How much did Zuma take?Ramaphosa wasn't supposed to be found with such a scandal after he had oat that he was going to let his business be run by other people since he was holding a high office bcos of conflict of interest...So u mean the Ipps money was his money?
@njabulomsweli5057 we can never know the full extent of how much Zuma took. The Guptas will know. Ubaba loves power and money. His 5 wives must chow still .
Even judges are not above the law. They illegally sentenced Zuma. Ramaphosa is getting away with murder. If it's Zuma, the law is stretched beyond limit
Jacob Zuma was never sentenced on whatever case he has been arrested for . What makes him to be recorded as a criminal ? He has just been thrown behind bars by Ramaphosa and Zondo to settle scores. Ramaphosa uses courts through his puppet Raymond Zondo to fight personal vendettas against Zuma and Same applies to Zondo, through their INFLUENCES they use every courts in the Land to fight personal fights against Jacob Zuma. This is a Banana Republic, without doubts. What is their problem if Jacob Zuma is being loved by citizens and want him to become their President? Remember that IEC is nothing else but the ANC branch or extention , including the IEC courts. Zondo has influence in all of them and Zondo is Zuma's enemy.
You ask "what makes him to be recorded as a criminal"? A crime is an action that has a penalty attached to it. He was found guilty of a crime called contempt of court and his penalty was 15 months. Once a person is convicted then you can call that person a criminal and before conviction the person is an accused. The law does not make a distinction of what crime you commit to be called a criminal. The conviction does. I think it is a matter of opinion if a person thinks it does. If you look at the cases against him, from an objective point of view - would the NPA take him to court if there was no evidence against him? If he was innocent why is he always going to court to stop "his day in court" when he himself said he wants it?? We have a stable judiciary, so would they not find him innocent if he is?? He may be a lovely person who many people adore, who is passionate about politics but when is it enough?? Should he not look after his health and enjoy the days he has left?? Maybe he can always give advice from his years of experience at home and mentor future leaders.
What actually happened to Ramaphosa at Phalaphala with undetermined cash found there why he was not arrested? Sars was suppose to take action but the DD not they just ignored. But for us government employees siphucwa ama R10.000 if we haven't submitted from salary engekho vele. South Afrika uyasidakelwa.
It has been, since the days of the common law as the main component of our legal system. We need better basic legal education for everyone in the country, me as a lawyer included.
He is not misinterpreting the law because he knows what it says. He is making points/excuses/inventions to satisfy his client or give answers to questions. I do not think some attorneys believe what they say. This attorney must be rich by now??
President Zuma has the option of going to the UN Human rights commission as this has precedence in the recent Srilankan decision that is the same as President Zuma's issue
The SABC never miss the opportunity to report anything negative about Zuma - it is clear who they work for (definitely not the SA public). We are not impressed.
There is no laws enforced in South Africa when you see crime everyday on such a large scale.
Life in a banana republic where criminals rule
Mr Zikalala previously intimidated that Electoral Court got it right, I think SABC must broaden its base of experts, he sometimes appear to be getting caught with the factions
Quite correct. I remember that.
The ConCourt is still wrong
@@vjchabane9795 I see what you actually mean to say "I still love President Zuma" .... 😃
@@gasman9917 and you still hate him… it’s about choices
@@vjchabane9795 I will be lying if I say I hate Zuma. I feel the same way about him like I feel about Mbeki. I have lost respect for them in that when they lost power they became enemies of the movement. Both of them today they walk around and try to speak to people and all that weight of credentials they carry has disappeared. They are not respected anymore. All because they failed to read the crowd and wanted it all for themselves. We deserve better. But no hate, trust me.
People want to choose their leader. This will bring about many problems.
When Theron took Ngqukayitobi to task during the hearing, you would say, hhayi Theron would be decending. Ngqukayitobi fought this one very hard to convince the 10 judges. Never trust the hearing when it comes to this. It's impressive for the country to conclude this before the election unlike the Americans with Trumpy Trump.
This nation LOVES politics, laws, cases, courts, appeals, .................. but cant create jobs.... learn from the foreign nationals who come to SA. they don't waste time on politics they make money n put food on the table..... We are too invested in Leaders, acts, sections of laws, rules, Politicking, Positions, Power, but dololo not a decent business can be started
Very true. The South African Courts are the most busiest places
True SA loves talk and charlatans. Not action.
Next Wednesday will prove that
Hmm, very true, couldn't agree more...
Especially the brown suffering youth, we have extremely serious challenges and yet we are doing nothing about that..
We are concerned about political leaders...
You are praising foreigners who run from their ill run countries and talk bad about a country that is ruled by law. You are very funny 😂😂
@luzukombuqu4976 read for comprehension, not for responding...
Vote for Us we will bring more Load shedding....viva ANC
When are you unpacking Jooste's "funeral"?
If there's is one lawyer with a legitimate claim to pushing the boundaries of our legal system as we know it, it is Dali Mpofu. I agree with the concourt on this one, despite this being a politically charged case, and dali losing, it would have been a tall order to expect the CC to sustain an argument from the respondents which essentially proposes to limit its power to impose judgements which are of criminal consequence, the section of contention provided nothing to that effect, jurisprudence is devoid of that principle and logic frowns upon it. However, for dali to have dribbled the electoral court through his legal expertise to endorse such a legal radical argument is something to marvel.
1. Conn Court agreed to hear an appeal before the judgement had been released. They had an interest in the case. They wanted to decide it. Why? This effectively made them a party in the case and not judges. How could they have known that the reasons of the Electoral Court would be appealable? The only reason for the appeal was because they did not like the order given. If they did not like or agree with the order, how could they be impartial?
2. IEC was found to have lied. Indisputable evidence was presented. They decided to ignore that evidence on the technicality that new evidence cannot be presented on appeal. This was a distortion of the principle. The basis for this is that the accuser who fails to get a conviction against the defendant cannot produce new evidence on appeal. This principle was not intended to give license to lie to the court hoping that the lie will not be discovered on time. It was unconscionable for the Conn Court to overlook this when they had sentenced JZ to 15months for contempt. Which is greater contempt of court, silence or lying to the court? This deception by the IEC was so big that it warranted “departure from ordinary procedures.”
3. Judicial Branch violated separation of powers doctrine by deciding who can join Parliament before parliament had considered the question.
4. Presidential prerogative to remit sentences and pardon offenders is specifically to check judicial over-reach in extreme cases. If executive makes a mistake, the final decision goes to the people at election and they take the final decision. Taking this power away was extremely arrogant of the Conn Court.
5. Every difficult matter in a democracy must be decided by the people. Judicial elitism is the subject of many of Thomas Sowell’s writings. They think they know so much more than the people that they have the gumption to tell us we can vote for anyone we like, only, among the ones they approve!
@@MichaelKatide Rebuttals
1. Suggesting that the CC has prematurely sustained an appeal application is such a grave accusation which if was true, would plunge the country in anarchy. This point is not found anywhere in the papers of the respondents, therefore raising it here in order to rationalize your dissatisfaction with the decision is unfair and irrelevant. Judges of the CC were not parties in this matter but only adjudicators, the only one who had anticipated the inappropriateness of his standing on the bench and the apprehension of bias that would have stained this case was Zondo and he accordingly voluntarily recused himself. The points advanced by Zuma for the recusal of the mentioned justices were weak and couldn't stand scrutiny.
2 there has to be a distinction drawn between the effect and consequence of a legal provision. The fact that Zuma didn't raise all the issues that were relevant at the initial stages of this dispute and as a result was precluded from raising them on an appeal setting, is not the natural effect of the invoked technical provision, but the consequence of zuma's miscalculation. Just on the basis of logic, how does one appeal an issue upon which the lower court, from whence the matter emanates, has not pronounced? Even on the basis of logic, the issue doesn't stand.
3 nothing in the decision even remotely implicates the principle of the separation of power. Parliament, as the national legislative body enacted the Act that disqualifies Zuma, and the court is constitutionally designated as the interpretator of legislation. Just because the interpretation imputed on the enactment is unfavorable doesn't mean that the separation of powers is undermined.
4 the court aptly and succinctly distinguished between imposition of a sentence and execution of sentence. What the presidential remission affects is the latter not the former. As to Thomas sowell's sentiments about the judiciary, he is not wrong, but he misses the fact that there are only two systems of governance, parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy, I think he does a disservice to his readers by critiquing the constitutional democracy regime without providing a viable alternative which is devoid of the ails he identifies in the impugned one.
5 Democracy itself, which is basically the reign of the will of the majority, or shortly put, majoritarianism, has an element of limitations inhering within it. It is not as fair on the people as those whom it benefits the most project it, in fact it has a veiled element of dictatorship that it perpetuates that only the inquisitive and suspecting eye can detect. Thus, let us not be dubbed into believing that mechanisms and instrumentalities that are utilized to subvert the will of the dis-empowered majority are undemocratic, if they were, the system of democracy wouldn't cater for them. These ignominious and seemingly underhanded machineries are all the ails of democracy from the lower class' perspective and strengths of democracy from elitist's perspective,it just depends from which vantage point you are judging them.
I appreciate your indulgence.
The Electiral Court should have given reasons before the final judgment. You cannot give judgment and the reasons to follow.
Who told you that chief..?
I think if ZUMA is really disqualified then the party must continue to take part in the election and select ZUMA second in charge, I think the ANC is scared becus a gap will fall from the ANC and they might loose this upcoming election and coalition in loosing parties is wrong.they should try again next time and convince the people but if u are ruled out u are out
18months yakuphi? This was either a mindless slip or typical make-up-anything on Zuma thing.
Why court is so soon rulling at last menuts is beause f scared of mr zuma
These analysts have no appreciation of the law. They keep on insisting on special treatment for Zuma. For starters, that court adjudicated on contempt of court. What makes them conflicted to deal with what section 47 means and whether IEC is correct body to apply it. Zuma is passing, like many before him. He cant hold us hostage in our quest for application of law without fear or favor. We dont make laws for Zuma. He must follow the country's laws or face consequences. And he has; and we all have to learn from it.
How does the court of law works because it seems like it only favors the ones in power?? E.g retirement age is 60 but how old are most of the politicians in parliament???
@@user-zv8rn8nb8e The difference with politicians is that they are elected.by the public. The will or wishes of the people are protectes. Democracy as we know it is for the people by the people. The constitution was designed to not discriminate. It protects the right of individuals to stand for election to parliament if they qualify, meaning if they comply with section 47. So if you are very old and it can be proven that you are not of a sound mind you will be disqualified.
Zondo will answer one day
Do we now has a new judicial precedence that says we sentence you, you appeal here but we will not recuse ourselves. Why was there no appeal in the sentence and now Zuma told to appeal the latest ruling
How does a judge fight in the street then take it to his court?
Also report about Orlando Stadium
What about it?
@@travistea yeah it's seems you don't follow SA politics at large.... MK, beside all ramaphosa obstacles, they filled up Orlando stadium... And you are not reporting about it. People are not fools media is very bias... Have you reported about phalaphala?
@@sbusisondlovu2046Bunch of unemployed nobodies people bussed in to kiss the behinds of the corrupt. No plan to better this country, just demands for hand outs.
SABC opted to show us soccer match at channel 404,disgrace
Bt you never show us MK manifesto at Orlando hhayi SA Media 😂😂😂
Who made the appeal?
So Zuma has a criminal record according to the concourt
I don't think these two are very smart
In mathematics we have RATIONAL NUMBERS and IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. That applies in ordinary daily living: we have rational people and irrational people.
Akushintshi nolu nci MAYIBUYE VIVA MKP ♻️👕🧪
How can a judge adjudicate a matter that happens to him?
It's Gesara elections. . When will S A wake up.
Why was Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane found incompetent when her cases were revealed ⚖️
Create jobs, dont worry about Busi or her granny
Ave kusazoliwa leMzansi silwa nomthethoke manje
The Electoral Court's verdict was disingenuous, it simply kicked the can down the road to the Concourt. This is worrying trend, as lower courts don't want to take a firm stand in high-profile cases or but heads with the likes of Dali Mpofu! Even for a layman, Sect 47 of the Constitution is very clear. If these judges are not sanctioned for dereliction and abdication of duties, the Concourt shall be clogged up with simple matters that should have been adjudicated in the lower courts!
Was that the clarity the case lacking? Or was it an appeal? Did they give leave to appeal?
@@samkunene7521you've just answered your own question!
@@samkunene7521 the Constitution - Section 47 (1)(e) is very clear. It went to the Constitutional Court to confirm what was plainly said in it. The conviction was not appealable because there is no higher court than the Constitutional Court who passed it down.The Constitutional Court has the final say on any Section of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996). The point of clarity was if the part of appeal applied to the former president which was plain that it did not. Anything handed down by the Constitutional Court is final. Only a higher court can hear a case from a lower court, for example: the Supreme Court of Appeal can hear an appeal from the High Court but not the other was around.
It is a senario that the drafters of the Constitution never thought would happen.
I hope this information helped.
No one is above the law, when you find yourself on the wrong side of the law, the law will be against you so with the case of Jacob Zuma he was on the wrong side of the law and that’s the price he needs to pay
Aybo Phala phala
@@snakhokonkephumelele5546 Phala was his own money, he didn't take State funds to build a Castle in Zululand
@@mrb2643 How much did Zuma take?Ramaphosa wasn't supposed to be found with such a scandal after he had oat that he was going to let his business be run by other people since he was holding a high office bcos of conflict of interest...So u mean the Ipps money was his money?
@njabulomsweli5057 we can never know the full extent of how much Zuma took. The Guptas will know.
Ubaba loves power and money. His 5 wives must chow still .
Even judges are not above the law. They illegally sentenced Zuma. Ramaphosa is getting away with murder. If it's Zuma, the law is stretched beyond limit
Jacob Zuma was never sentenced on whatever case he has been arrested for . What makes him to be recorded as a criminal ? He has just been thrown behind bars by Ramaphosa and Zondo to settle scores. Ramaphosa uses courts through his puppet Raymond Zondo to fight personal vendettas against Zuma and Same applies to Zondo, through their INFLUENCES they use every courts in the Land to fight personal fights against Jacob Zuma. This is a Banana Republic, without doubts. What is their problem if Jacob Zuma is being loved by citizens and want him to become their President? Remember that IEC is nothing else but the ANC branch or extention , including the IEC courts. Zondo has influence in all of them and Zondo is Zuma's enemy.
You ask "what makes him to be recorded as a criminal"? A crime is an action that has a penalty attached to it. He was found guilty of a crime called contempt of court and his penalty was 15 months. Once a person is convicted then you can call that person a criminal and before conviction the person is an accused. The law does not make a distinction of what crime you commit to be called a criminal. The conviction does. I think it is a matter of opinion if a person thinks it does. If you look at the cases against him, from an objective point of view - would the NPA take him to court if there was no evidence against him? If he was innocent why is he always going to court to stop "his day in court" when he himself said he wants it?? We have a stable judiciary, so would they not find him innocent if he is?? He may be a lovely person who many people adore, who is passionate about politics but when is it enough?? Should he not look after his health and enjoy the days he has left?? Maybe he can always give advice from his years of experience at home and mentor future leaders.
Angabuyi khumalo akathembekile Minooka akahambe
Today its exciting to you media guys
What actually happened to Ramaphosa at Phalaphala with undetermined cash found there why he was not arrested? Sars was suppose to take action but the DD not they just ignored. But for us government employees siphucwa ama R10.000 if we haven't submitted from salary engekho vele. South Afrika uyasidakelwa.
The courts in this country are being captured. They choose who charge and who shouldn't be charged.
Who are judges in Electoral Court?
How come they got it all wrong?
Can we re look at their suitability
Khanpempe knew what she was doing obvious BT abanye ngeke bebone.listning to arguments she was used to give this clumsy sentence 🚮
It was an illegal judgement !!!
Cry us a river. Your corrupt messiah must go back to jail
loool now its a crime to be in contempt of court🤣
Read the law very well, any judge can sent you to prison for contempt. Its a crime.
It has been, since the days of the common law as the main component of our legal system. We need better basic legal education for everyone in the country, me as a lawyer included.
Please don't expose yourself
He was never charged for any crime. Ba ya nya.
The bible, refer to righteous judge and wicked, judge,
Zondo is a wicked judge .
That judgement has no effect politically.
What if the higher court also gets it wrong,what happens then?
Let’s go for VAR 😂
Bias where's is Mk mandate over Saturday are you back from leave now?
Dali is to blame for misinterpreting the law ,the idiots pay lots of money for his incompetence
May be he studied law in Russia or Ukraine that why he always having different perspective
@@nicoliantsolokane455 He must study Roman Dutch Law , not Shebeen law
He is not misinterpreting the law because he knows what it says. He is making points/excuses/inventions to satisfy his client or give answers to questions. I do not think some attorneys believe what they say. This attorney must be rich by now??
You are ignorant on issues regarding this case
@lindamanamela7998 really ,why does the judges then interpret the law as lawyers and Dali a lawyer misinterpreted the law
This guy Zikalala doent understand the law. He always agrees with any outcome or ruling
Are you a lawyer?
@@ThamiMngadi
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Do you understand the Law? You yourself
He doesn't say what you want to hear....
President Zuma has the option of going to the UN Human rights commission as this has precedence in the recent Srilankan decision that is the same as President Zuma's issue
Hoza 29May,sikhathele ukukhuluma thina amaANC,⚫️🟢🟡✍🏾vote ANC ✊✊✊✊✊✊✊
ZUMA is clean, he qualifies to be the NEXT POPE.
You quite right, he might as well start church then that will qualifies him to be a POPE
Clean do you understand the meaning of the word " clean" nobody is clean in this world
Zuma is clean. He had a lot of showers
Zuma is the most useless corrupt clown in SA. He must go back to jail.
😂😂😂