Thursday, November 8, 2012

The Man Behind the Millions

RAGS TO RICHES: David Mabilu Picture: SOWETAN

PROPERTY developer David Mabilu has all the trappings of wealth, from his R14-million mansion in Joburg to a fleet of luxury cars, including a R2.4-million Ferrari California and a R2-million Aston Martin DB9.

Mabilu is the son a former domestic worker, Maria, and ex-mine labourer, Nndanduleni, and was born in Soweto.

Today, just one of his companies has accumulated at least R3-billion in contracts and tenders.

After matriculating from Tshidimbini Secondary School in Venda, he enrolled at the University of Limpopo and then at the University of Johannesburg, where he obtained a master's degree in development.

He started several ventures before establishing Vharanani Properties, a housing and infrastructure development firm, in 2001.

The company's projects range from low-cost houses to a R224-million office park.

His other companies include Mamasumo Properties, Mbengwa Mining, Vharanani Mining, Khwinisa Technologies and Promafco, a property development company building a medical accommodation complex in Polokwane, Limpopo.

His businesses have afforded him the finer things in life, including a 4081m² estate in exclusive Sandhurst and a multimillion-rand compound in Polokwane.

His fleet of cars includes a BMW 5-series and a Mercedes-Benz S Class V221.

He has donated millions to poor communities, including R500000 to build additional
classrooms at his former school, Mveledzandivho Primary School in Chiawelo.
He met his fiancée, Phala Mokgophi, about 13 years ago, and today they have three children, Mbilu, Gumani and Lufuno.

Mokgophi, 38, is a former shareholder of Vharanani Properties and owns several businesses of her own, including Takalani Engineering and Nyadzani Business Enterprises.

Mabilu and Mokgophi are a power couple in Polokwane and count among their friends Limpopo premier Cassel Mathale and ANC Youth League president Julius Malema.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Does Jacob Zuma Deserve Your Vote?

An open letter to Mr Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa.

Dear Mr President.

As a South African citizen, I cannot fathom where to begin expressing my anger and disdain towards you and your totally useless government. As the President of this country your are a dismal failure in protecting the basic "right to life" of your countrymen.

Before the race card is played, let me just clarify, I am not writing this as a white South African, but as an African born on this continent, and as a once proud, true African son.

The massacre that took place at Marikana happened on your beat. The blood of a nation is on your hands.

This country is on the brink of economic suicide due to rouge strikes and faltering greedy unions.

The countless murders that rock this country's roots on a daily basis are a reflection of your total inability to rule and govern this once awesome Rainbow Nation.

You have allowed this country, that was once the crown jewel of Africa to become a jester on the global stage.

As the fourth president of South Africa, you have more blood on your hands than your 3 post apartheid predecessors put together.

A nations pride is carried by its people and built by a government who are able to supply the basic needs in return to its people.

Education, Health Care and Economic stability are what history is created and built on. Your inability to provide the very basics to our nation is a true reflection of your personal greed.

While you have absolutely no shame on spending R250 million on your personal "village", you do not have the balls to take a stance against violence and corruption.

On the matter of "basic rights", education is a right, not a privilege. You will go down in history as the fool who turned his back on his country because of the slap happy way in which you and your grossly under qualified Minister Ms Angie Motsege have handled the issue regarding basic learning material supplies.

You both should be tried for treason due to the sabotage that you have allowed to take place against our already disillusioned youth.

Need I remind you Mr President that it was the youth who set the wheels of change in motion in 1976.

Do not think Mr President, that the youth of today are any less qualified of starting a new uprising.

Mr President, I wonder how it is possible for you to get the votes needed at Manguang for you to run for President again.

Rocket science aside, its simple, as 4500 delegates will decide the future of a nation on your personal promise of enrichment. Mr Mandela was quoted as saying that "never again will the majority be dictated to by the minority".

I do not think that Mr Mandela ever dreamed that this horrid atrocity would ever take place again in his life time.

I cannot believe that the ANC that fought for equality, and were able to change the history of this country, are going to allow you to inflict further carnage on our country.

I for one do not believe that you Mr President, deserve my vote, and I strongly urge my fellow country men of all race and gender to value their vote and think carefully before casting it for a government that has proved that it cannot control crime and has no idea about the basic needs of its people.

It is a sad day for me as I am now not only one of the millions of disillusioned South Africans, but I too mourn the senseless death of a friend whose life was taken for no other reason than your failure to provide what you you promised your people when you recruited their vote.

I urge you Mr President to take a stand for once and for all before its to late for my country, even if that stand means your resignation due to your incompetence.

I am not asking for the ANC to be removed from Government, I am asking you to make the right decision and put your Country before your personal greed.

Wayne Richards

(posted on his FB wall earlier today by a good friend of mine - Wayne W. Richards - who has just lost a close friend due to crime.)

Sunday, November 4, 2012



 Hannes Engelbrecht

The new colonials have arrived.

Without as much as a whisper the South African government allowed at least 400 000 Chinese to swamp the country during the past six years. Chinese migrants, mainly from the overpopulated Fujian province in China, have been shipped off to South Africa at an alarming rate. Spreading all over the country.....
Even in the remotest parts, between 6000 and 12000 “Chinese shops” sprang up – indicating that the phenomenon is well-orchestrated by both China and South Africa.
Prof Colin McCarthy, retired from the University of Stellenbosch, first noted the “Chinese colonization”. Says Prof McCarthy: “All the evidence indicates that the project to set up such an extensive network of Chinese shops, all following the same pattern and targeting the same market, was well researched, well planned, well organized and well financed”.
The young, unemployed couples from Fujian province settled into the network – pushing up cheap Chinese plastics, products and clothing into a lucrative retail chain far bigger than Pick n Pay, Pep Stores or Edgars. And to make matters worse: most of the Chinese shops are not registered and do not pay any taxes in South Africa; not even import or export duties – in fact, China put its clothing exports to South Africa to R11,3 billion in 2010; while South Africa’s failing statistics put the Chinese clothing imports at only R6,7 billion! It means that in one single year R4,6 billion worth of Chinese clothing entered South Africa illegally.
A South African Revenue Services employee spilled the beans on a small Chinese shop in a rural area where, when raided by SARS, R1,2 million was found under the counter.
Janet Wilhelm of the HSRC observes: “It is amazing how so many people can enter a country seemingly unnoticed!” She quotes the SAPS Aliens Investigation Unit as saying “many Chinese travel to South Africa via Mbabane, Maputo and Maseru from where they enter South Africa with false identity documents by road”.
Patrick Chong, chairman of the Chinese Association of South Africa, says: “Many would enter on tourist or student visas then simply stay”.
Researchers of Noseweek followed the Chen family where one pioneer settled illegally in South Africa, spreading within four years to 172 members of the family scattered across Lesotho trading Chinese products.
What is even more mind-boggling and sinister is that the South African ANC government officially proclaimed Chinese as “honorary blacks”, making them exempt from affirmative action, quotas and Black Economic Empowerment. 
The whole “Chinese” experiment has been carefully planned, criminally enhanced, and no doubt… vast sums of money are involved, lining the pockets of very influential South African politicians.
It is ironic that while populists like Malema and Shivangu walk about claiming "land and minerals for the South African people", the ANC government has allowed at least 400 000 additional Indians and Pakistanis, at least 400 000 Chinese and at least 10 million illegals from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Mozambique, Angola and now also Zambia into the country...

Zuma Stealing South African's Money

Helen Zille, Leader of the Democratic Alliance

4 November 2012

Today my colleagues and I visited President Jacob Zuma’s compound at Nkandla to see what a R250 million renovation with public money looks like.
We felt it was important for us to see the compound for ourselves before we embark on court action against the President for this blatant abuse of power.

This is state-sponsored corruption on an unprecedented scale.

We cannot let him get away with it.

On the 16th of October we wrote to the President, and to various government ministers, asking for the truth about Nkandla. We asked them for details on how much was spent, on what, by whom, and under what provision of law.

We got no response other than to acknowledge receipt of our letters. Today we are giving President Zuma and his government a further 72 hours to respond. If there is no substantive response by close of business on Wednesday 7 November, we will instruct our lawyers to make preparations to take him and the government to court over what is now known as ‘Nkandlagate’.

The news of our visit was met with open threats of violence from the ANC and the SACP. No ANC leaders repudiated or condemned these threats. In fact, they were amplified with inflammatory and race-loaded rhetoric by senior ANC leaders. We will not be intimidated from exercising our constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and focus public attention on the facts. And we will not allow the ANC to declare certain areas ‘no-go zones’ in our country.

The ANC has condemned our visit here today because they say this is the ‘private residence’ of the President. They don’t see the irony in that statement. It is exactly because this is the private residence of the President that this publicly funded upgrade is so wrong.

When almost a quarter of a billion rand of public money is spent on a private residence, then it cannot be considered ‘private’ any longer.

President Zuma has lost the right to call this his private residence. Nkandla belongs to each and every South African who has to sacrifice the basic services they need, so that the President could turn his home into a five-star fortressed palace.

One day we will look at it as a monument to the fight against corruption, a reminder of a President who thought he could get away with stealing the people’s money.
Abusing public money for private benefit is the very definition of corruption. The R250 million spent on Nkandla is the most brazen case of corruption since the Arms Deal, in which President Zuma also played an active role.
In fact, the two cases are closely linked. It is a matter of court record that the bribe paid by Schabir Shaik to then Deputy President Zuma in 2000 was to help fund the original construction of the Nkandla compound. Zuma abused his position as President to escape prosecution in that case. Now he has abused his position to finish the renovations to his homestead with public money.

The DA has never been intimidated by the ANC, and we are not now. The truth must come out about Nkandla. President Zuma must answer to all South Africans for stealing their money for his personal use.

Jacob Zuma's Nkandla

Nkandla - DA leader Helen Zille has laid a charge under the Gatherings Act against the ANC for blocking a public road during her failed attempt to visit President Jacob Zuma's KwaZulu-Natal homestead.

A large group of ANC supporters sang as they waited for her to leave the Nkandla police station on Sunday.

When the convoy transporting the Democratic Alliance and a media contingent left the satellite police station, African National Congress supporters shouted "hamba" (leave).

An ANC supporter was arrested for drunk and disorderly outside the police station.

Police spokesperson Colonel Jay Naicker said another man was arrested earlier, during a demonstration by ANC supporters, for having an unlicensed firearm.

"The man was in possession of a rifle. He will be charged for discharging a firearm in public and possession of a firearm."

Zille said Zuma had lost the right to call his home a private residence.

"Nkandla belongs to each and every South African who has to sacrifice the basic services they need, so that the President could turn his home into a five-star fortressed palace.

"One day we will look at it as a monument to the fight against corruption."


She questioned how the government could spend R248m on Zuma's home, when it would not pay to transport the relatives of the victims of the Marikana shooting to the Farlam commission of inquiry.

Earlier police stopped her and her entourage from approaching Zuma's homestead, in the village of KwaNxamalala, saying they wanted to prevent violence.

Zille was told she could not pass the police roadblock as there were ANC supporters on the road to Zuma's home. She said the party had permission to gather on a public road outside a school opposite Zuma's home.

Several cars carrying ANC supporters passed the police roadblock on a side road. They carried sticks and sang Dubhula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer).

Buses full of ANC supporters were allowed to pass on the main road.

Riot police

When Zille asked officers why they were allowed to pass, she was told they would open a case against the organisers of the ANC march.

"We never intended to go inside Zuma's home, we only wanted to gather opposite his compound on a public road," Zille said.

About 700m from where the Democratic Alliance was stopped, police in riot gear prevented ANC supporters from advancing. Officers formed a human chain across the road.

Police had several armoured Nyala personnel carriers, two trucks with water canon, and a helicopter in the area.

Jacob's Nkandla




RIP Democracy in South Africa


 Born 27 April 1994 - Died 4 November 2012

Entered this world with much fanfare and adoration from the global community on 27 April 1994, and had a very rosy childhood under the patronage and guidance of the first democratically elected leader of the nation.

 A new custodian took over the supervision of this still growing but vibrant economy on 14 June 1999, and the following formative years were spent mainly in denial of the scourge of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle eating Beetroot and Garlic as prescribed by Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, instead of being sustained and nourished by a balanced diet of international investment and industrial expansion.

Things really started going downhill in a kamikaze spiral however, when the incumbent was ousted from his position on 24 September 2008, and replaced by a leopardskin & loincloth clad, Nike wearing polygamist, with a penchant for soliciting bribes and being embroiled in ongoing corruption and tender scandals, an ever increasing concubine of wives and offspring (some illegitimately born out of wedlock), and no moral compass or accountability to the populace for his actions or in-actions whatsoever.

Finally passed away quietly on 4 November 2012, when all semblance of a democracy was finally extinguished forever, by the prevention of the opposition from inspecting a 'publically funded' luxury retirement home for the 'philanderer-in-chief', by his illiterate and impoverished supporters, who still blindly vote for "Jobs, Freedom, Houses and a Better Life for All' at every general election since 1994.
nkandla nov 2

RIP Democracy, you will be sadly missed by all the tax payers of South Africa, who supported you in the 18 short years you were with us.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Jacob Zuma and his Nkandla

Answers about security spending at President Jacob Zuma's private home have raised only more questions. Phillip de Wet and Sally Evans report.

President Jacob Zuma should not only have known exactly how much security upgrades at his Nkandla homestead would cost, but he should have been intimately involved in their ­planning, according to Cabinet ­regulations.
But Zuma has said he does not know about the details, a claim that has been backed by Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi.
"I don't know how much it costs," Zuma said in reply to a question put to him earlier this month, explaining that he did not ask about the details of security arrangements for Cabinet ministers either.
In Parliament this week, Nxesi said if anyone was to blame for overspending at the president's private home it would be his department, reinforcing an earlier statement that public works had simply implemented plans drawn up by state intelligence agencies, the police and defence force.
Under ethics rules, this would mean Zuma was in contravention of the Ministerial Handbook, with which Cabinet ministers, although not necessarily the president himself, must comply.
In terms of the handbook, an office bearer must submit a formal request for public works "to make a contribution towards security measures" recommended by police evaluators. The official is then not only responsible for getting quotations for the work, but must also claim the money spent from the department of public works before paying it to the contractors involved.

 Nxesi originally claimed that the work done at the Nkandla compound had complied with the requirements of the handbook, which sets a reviewable maximum expenditure on security at private homes of R100 000, although he later said the work had been in compliance with the National Key Points Act.
But this law states clearly that security spending at a declared key point – ordered by the minister of defence in the interests of the country – is for the account of the owner.
This, in the case of the Nkandla home, is either the Ingonyama Trust, which owns the land on which it is built on behalf of Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini, or Zuma, the lawful occupant. The trust is the landowner in law of 2.7-million hectares of KwaZulu-Natal.
Failure to spend the money necessary to secure a key point without reasonable cause can carry a jail term of up to five years under the Act.
The law empowers the minister of defence to "take, or cause to be taken, any or all of the steps which in his opinion are or may become necessary in respect of the security" of a key point – but only with the consent of the owner, who remains liable for the cost, unless the minister chooses to reduce the liability.
The payment for state spending on securing key points, should an owner fail to comply or the state offer a loan or contribution, should come from a specially created account – the special account for the safeguarding of national key points.
Leaked information
But documents released by the department of public works (which now denies releasing them) as well as leaked information reveal that about R240-million spent at the Zuma house was ascribed to the public works portfolio for accommodation for very, very important persons (VVIPs).

Nxesi and his department have consistently refused to speak about the Nkandla security work, citing a secrecy obligation in the key points law. This week the presidency was asked whether Zuma had submitted a request for public funding to secure his home, or whether security measures were installed after the military took over contracts, but it did not respond.
Parliament's standing committee on public accounts this week deferred a decision on whether to investigate the Nkandla spending. A similar preliminary inquiry by the public protector is under way.
Among the issues that might be investigated is the extent to which security costs were inflated with what a senior source close to the matter has described as "inflated concern" by those tasked with the security assessment, which required the construction of underground bunkers.
The bulletproof glass used at Nkandla, the source told the Mail & Guardian, had to be specially manufactured because it was required to be of a higher standard than that regularly used by banks, cash-in-transit companies and in other high-risk areas. "They are extremely paranoid, worse than security specialists in the United States," said the source, who wanted to remain anonymous.
Last week City Press published figures showing R3-million was spent on bulletproof glass at the homestead. The company identified as the supplier, South African Bullet Resistant Glass, would not comment on either the cost or the nature of the product it had supplied.

Jacob Zuma's Decade of Destruction

After a 10-year legal war, President Jacob Zuma is trying to prevent the tapes that got him off the hook from being made public.

It is almost 10 years since the Mail & Guardian first revealed that the Scorpions were investigating then-deputy president Jacob Zuma – on November 29 2002.

Since then Zuma's decade-long battle to avoid prosecution on corruption charges has been the real political tsunami, ripping through institutions and careers.

It has led to the recall of a president, the factionalisation of the ruling party and its government, the destruction of the Scorpions, the departure of three national directors of public prosecutions and the tainting of the reputation of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

Now Zuma's bid to avoid his day of reckoning – including accounting for the seed money that first funded what has become the Nkandla monstrosity – has entered a bitter new phase following the NPA's refusal to hand over copies of the so-called spy tapes.

The Zuma tapes

 The tapes – secret recordings by the intelligence services of discussions between members of the Scorpions, the NPA and prominent political figures – were leaked to Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, and used as the basis of the claim that the Zuma prosecution had been tainted by an "abuse of process".

Then-acting national director of public prosecutions Moketedi Mpshe cited intercepted conversations of former Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy as central to his decision, in April 2009, to discontinue the prosecution.

In excerpted transcripts released by Mpshe, McCarthy appeared to have a number of discussions in late 2007 with people outside the NPA – including then-former national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka – about the timing of charges being reintroduced.

Read More: The spy tapes timeline

Of concern was the looming Polokwane conference of the ANC – and the impact that recharging Zuma might have on the outcome.

McCarthy also appeared to make a special effort – with Ngcuka's assistance – to have the NPA's court papers in the Constitutional Court filed and made public on their due date, Friday December 14.

The papers – in reply to Zuma's constitutional challenge to the search and seizure operations carried out against him – set out the case against the man challenging Mbeki for the ANC presidency.

The intention appears to have been that delegates gathering in Polokwane that weekend would, in Ngcuka's intercepted phrase: "Wake up, think: What are we doing?"

Mpshe's decision
In justifying his decision, Mpshe emphasised there had been a valid case against Zuma. He also noted that the prosecution team itself believed the case should continue and that it should be left to a court to decide whether to stop the prosecution.

But Mpshe argued: "Mr McCarthy used the legal process for a purpose other than for which the process was designed to serve, that is, for collateral and illicit purposes. It does not matter that the team acted properly, honestly, fairly and justly throughout. Mr McCarthy's conduct amounts to a serious abuse of process and offends one's sense of justice." It later emerged that part of Mpshe's legal justification appeared to have been lifted from a Hong Kong judgment that was later overturned on appeal.

McCarthy, who by then had left to join the World Bank, has never given his version of events.

The DA steps in
In 2009 the Democratic Alliance went to court to try to have Mpshe's decision reviewed and set aside.

A preliminary point was the right of the DA as part of the review process to have access to the "record of decision" – the documentary evidence on which Mpshe relied when deciding to terminate the case, which included representations made by Zuma's lawyers.

The prosecuting authorities refused to deliver the record on the basis that it contained the representations, which had been made on a confidential basis.

The DA then applied to receive what was termed the "reduced record" – the material on which Mpshe relied, minus the written representations from Zuma.

The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled that the party did not have sufficient direct interest or "standing" to bring the case and dismissed the DA's application for the record.

The appeal court ruling

 The DA took this ruling to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In March this year the appeal court ruled in the DA's favour, making an important determination on the rights of political parties to go to court in the public interest. On the record of decision, Judge Navsa made the following key finding: "Without the record a court cannot perform its constitutionally entrenched review function …The DA … has merely asked for an order directing the office of the national director of public prosecutions to dispatch … the record of proceedings relating to the decision to discontinue the prosecution, excluding the written representations made on behalf of Mr Zuma … I can see no bar to such an order being made."

The order
Navsa ordered that within 14 days – by early April – the national director of public prosecutions produce the record, with the following caveat: "Such record shall exclude the written representations made on behalf of [Zuma] and any consequent memorandum or report prepared in response thereto, or oral representations if the production thereof, would breach any confidentiality attaching to the representations."

The judgment also made reference to concerns expressed by Zuma's lawyers that there might be material in the record of decision that might adversely affect his rights and to which he might justifiably object.

To meet this concern, acting national director of public prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba gave an undertaking that her office would inform Zuma of the contents of the documents to be released so that his lawyers could raise any objections.

It is this loophole that Jiba and Hulley have used to block the release of the spy tapes.

Return to Stalingrad

 In the drawn-out litigation with the Scorpions, Zuma's lawyers became notorious for what was termed the Stalingrad approach – fighting off the prosecution street by legal street by taking technical and preliminary points.

The response to Navsa's ruling carries the same hallmarks. Two days after the expiry of the appeal court's deadline, the state attorney wrote to the DA saying the NPA was still compiling the record. In addition, there were "certain tape recordings" that were still in the process of being transcribed.

But the state claimed it was obliged to give Zuma's legal team an opportunity to consider whether there was any objection to the disclosure of the recordings.

The completed transcript was delivered to Hulley by April 25, to which he responded in a manner that suggested he believed he had been given a veto right, something not suggested by the appeal court judgment.

Asking for more time to consider the matter, Hulley noted: "We are presently not disposed to consenting to the release of any further information to the DA …"

No further response was received from Hulley until after the DA launched a new North Gauteng High Court application on September 18 to compel the NPA to comply with the appeal court order.

Since then, Jiba has argued in court papers that the recordings or transcripts are "inextricably linked" with Zuma's representations and therefore cannot be disclosed without Zuma's consent. Such objections, she argues, will have to be referred back to court for adjudication.

Hulley has merely indicated – without providing any argument – that at the hearing Zuma's lawyers will argue that the transcripts do not fall within the ambit of the appeal court order.
This leaves the DA in the absurd position that none of the material on which Mpshe publicly based his decision forms part of the "official" record.

Any adverse ruling in Gauteng is sure to be appealed.

What are they hiding?

 The reluctance to deal with the tapes is both substantive and procedural.

All indications are that Mpshe took his decision under enormous pressure.

The political atmosphere in the run-up to the withdrawal of charges was extremely heated. Mbeki had been recalled in September 2008. Zuma was the ANC presidential candidate for the national elections just more than two weeks away.

Key Zuma allies made it clear to the M&G at the time that the ­lobbying was intense (although not necessarily communicated directly to Mpshe) and included implied threats of wider disclosure of surveillance material that might be personally, politically or professionally embarrassing to members of the NPA or Scorpions.

Mpshe's apparent reference to an obscure Hong Kong judgment might suggest that a decision was taken –and then legal reasons dug up to justify it.

Now, given that the prosecution team disagreed with the decision –and Wim Trengove, a senior advocate with deep knowledge of the case, had publicly lambasted it – there must be real concern in the Zuma camp that Mpshe's decision might not stand up to court scrutiny.
By blocking access to the transcripts, claimed as the very foundation of Mpshe's decision, Zuma's lawyers are preventing any meaningful review at all.

What else are they hiding?

 So far, the only transcripts provided are small snatches of what intelligence sources have conceded was very extensive surveillance.

One intelligence source claimed to the M&G that the high-security conference room at NPA headquarters itself was bugged.

Justice would demand that the full context of the exchanges be disclosed.

It is possible that counterveiling interpretations and events might emerge from the full record that were not given due weight in the fevered atmosphere of April 2009. More likely, however, is that the full recordings – and the circumstances of their capture and delivery, both to Hulley and to the NPA – might disclose details that are embarrassing, if not illegal.
Certainly, the legality of the initial recordings, never mind the legality of their disclosure to Hulley, may well be called into question.

This is so, despite the inspector general of intelligence concluding that taps by both the National Intelligence Agency and police crime intelligence were legally authorised by the designated judge.

Former acting head of crime intelligence Mulangi Mphego revealed in court papers that the initial judicial approval for the surveillance of McCarthy was sought on the basis that he was suspected of links to a drugs cartel.

Now Judge Willie Seriti, who granted the application for the wiretap, would have us believe that he applied his mind to this application but does not remember coming across this extraordinary allegation about the man who was head of the Scorpions at the time.
And former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils has said publicly that he was bypassed by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) – contrary to instructions he had issued after the hoax email debacle – when the agency applied for its own interception order.
It was the agency tapes, which covered most of the material disclosed by Hulley, on which the NPA relied for its decision.


 As Mpshe explained at the time: "Although [Hulley's] recordings sounded authentic, the NPA decided to approach agencies that have a legal mandate to intercept telephone calls with a view to ascertaining whether they may have legally obtained recordings of the same conversations.

"The NIA confirmed to the NPA that it indeed had legally obtained recordings of many of the same conversations that were obtained during the course of its investigation into the circumstances surrounding the production and leaking of the Browse Mole report.

"The NIA indicated that it was able to share these legally with the NPA for the purposes of the investigation and for reaching a decision in this matter."

So it is clear that Mpshe based his decision on material he obtained from his own resources, although he was alerted to its existence by Hulley.

How the NPA will now argue that this material is governed by the confidentiality of Zuma's representations awaits illumination in the North Gauteng High Court. Do not expect enlightenment anytime soon.

Jacob Zuma - A 10 year Timeline

We look back at the 10 years since the M&G first revealed that the Scorpions were investigating then-deputy president Jacob Zuma.

October 9 2001
Schabir Shaik and French defence company Thomson-CSF raided simultaneously in four countries as part of the arms deal probe. The Zuma link to the investigation is not disclosed.

November 29 2002
Mail & Guardian breaks the story that the Scorpions are investigating then-deputy president Jacob Zuma for allegedly attempting to secure a bribe from Thomson, since renamed Thales.

National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Bulelani Ngcuka announces the prosecution of Shaik but declines to prosecute Zuma despite, saying there is a “prima facie case” against him. Later that year, Ngcuka is embroiled in allegations he was an apartheid spy.

July 2004
Ngcuka resigns.

October 2004
Shaik goes on trial.

May 2005
Shaik convicted on all counts, including bribing Zuma.

June 2005
New NPA head Vusi Pikoli announces decision to charge Zuma. President Thabo Mbeki sacks Zuma as deputy president. Zuma begins mobilisation to support his legal and political comeback.

September 2006
Zuma case struck from the role when NPA not ready to proceed, given disputes about validity of raids on Zuma.

March 2007
Crime intelligence operation begins to monitor members of the NPA and Scorpions and secretly bug Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy.

May 2007
The Browse Mole report is leaked, prompting NIA investigation into the Scorpions.

November 2007
Supreme Court of Appeal rules in favour of the NPA with respect to appeals relating to various search and seizure exercises.
Late 2007,
shortly before the ANC’s Polokwane conference Security services secretly tap phone conversations involving McCarthy, Ngcuka and others outside the NPA about the timing of charges being reintroduced and their impact on the Polokwane conference.

Friday December 14 2007
NPA files papers outlining the case against Zuma in the Constitutional Court.

December 2007
Jacob Zuma ousts Thabo Mbeki as ANC president.

December 28 2007 
The Scorpions serve Zuma an indictment to stand trial in the high court.

July 2008
The Constitutional Court rules that raids on Zuma were valid.

September 12 2008
Pietermaritzburg Judge Chris Nicholson holds that Zuma’s corruption charges were unlawful on procedural grounds.

September 20 2008 Mbeki resigns after his “recall’” by the ANC.

January 12 2009
Supreme Court of Appeal overturns Nicholson’s ruling.

April 2009
Acting national director of public prosecutions Moketedi Mpshe discontinues the prosecution of Zuma, citing as his reason the secret recordings. In his legal justification he describes McCarthy’s conduct as “a serious abuse of process”, but emphasises there had been a valid case against Zuma. Mpshe releases excerpted transcripts of the tapes.

Democratic Alliance goes to court to have Mpshe’s decision set aside, but the North Gauteng High Court dismisses the application.

March 2012
Supreme Court of Appeal overturns the high court ruling and orders that the national director of public prosecutions produce the record of decision on which Mpshe based his decision to drop the case.