Well don't blame me. The DA said so and the learned Judge concurred - President Zuma is a thief.
So, after today it's now confirmed. It's fair to call President Zuma a thief. I wonder if he did request the unfortunate title.
But another fair question would be - Was it wise for the ANC to go whining to court?
Let's take a minute and look at the DA. It is ANC 'policy' to demonize the DA at every given opportunity. The ANC has hurled vulgar ostentations at Zille and the DA for years now. Do you recall the 2009 Zille Cabinet saga?
Even now the ANC campaign in the Western Cape is riddled with racial nationalism. Either Zille is a 'coward' or she's got balls. Why doesn't she run to the courts whining?
I don't believe she doesn't have a reputation to protect. Or is it because she does not have "A Cult Personality status" to protect?
The ANC scored an own goal by going to court because it seems like the learned Judge perused the Public Protector report and guess what? It election time and name calling and ridiculing ones opponent is a norm.
But I guess, that sentiment only applies if name calling and ridicule is not hurled at President Zuma cult personality status.
Between the Public Protector and the Judge, the feeling was mutual. What happened at Inkandla was insatiable and unconscionable.
I don't think it was Mr Jackson Mthembu's intention to do a litmus test on the Public Protector Inkandla report. But that's what happened and unfortunately leaving a smelly egg on his pretty face.
I recall that fateful day, when the so-called security cluster of Ministers took the Public Protector to Court. That was a fateful attempt to stop the wheels of justice and derail the truth about Inkandla. But the frantic Ministers realized that their desperation would definitely backfire. They were going to loose hands down to the Public Protector had they went ahead with their ridiculous interdict.
The Ministers have twice investigated Zuma and came up with very questionable findings. The Gupta saga - The jury is still out there. Why is Zuma commanding his own Ministers to investigate him?
Why didn't Zuma appoint an independent commission of inquiry, headed by a retired judge and with unambiguous terms of reference to investigate the Guptas saga? Instead President Zuma 'commands' sheepish men and women depended on him for patronage to investigate him and his bosom friends.
I wonder if the Guptas saga Ministers findings would withstand the test in a court of law. Let's get a second opinion must have been the call of civil society. Civil society did it with the Menzi Simelane debacle and the courts ruled that, President Zuma appointment was irrational.
Unless someone proves otherwise, the Ministers findings on Inkandla - That too must pass the test of the Republic's judicial system.
My own assertion is that it is not proper and unconstitutional for the Executive to investigate themselves, when it is them accused of gross misconduct involving Public funds.
Take the Chapter 9 state institutions established to support the Republic's Constitutional democracy.
"Those institutions are independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law, and they must be impartial and must exercise their powers and perform their functions without fear, favour or prejudice" - Chapter 9 Section 181(2).
"No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of these institutions" - Chapter 9 181(4).
May I put it to you - Didn't the Executive interfere with the functions of the Public Protector?
Did the Executive and National Assembly (Chief Whip) protect the dignity and effectiveness of the Public Protector?
"The Public Protector has the power, as regulated by national legislation - to investigate any conduct in State affairs, or in the public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice" - Chapter 9 182 (1)a.
So under which statutory law were the security cluster Ministers appointed to investigate themselves? And can their findings (Guptas and Inkandla) withstand the test of the judiciary?
For now all we know about President Zuma is that he at times makes "irrational" decisions (Menzi Simelane).
After the Judge perused the final Public Protector report he also concluded - What transpired at President Zuma compound was insatiable and unconscionable. And the DA was right to refer to him as a thief of public funds.
I did not get the DA 'sms' but thanks to Jackson Mthembu whining, today I now know - President Zuma is also a thief.
The President in the last 5 years did not just make irrational decisions, it is also fair to now refer to him as a thief.
President Zuma (0) RSA Constitutional Democracy (2). The final score as concluded by the courts of law.