Little Johnny passes his friend a letter in class. The letter says, “let’s meet at first break behind the toilets and have a smoke. You bring the cigarettes” His friend passes a letter back, “good idea, see you there.”
After first break Johnny passes another letter saying, “that smoke was great, thanks, I owe you one.” His mate passes a letter back saying, “pleasure, don’t worry about repaying me, just do my English homework for me.”
At that point the teacher notices a few things wrong.
- Letters have been passing back and forth between the two little boys since before first break.
- They both smell of cigarette smoke.
- Little Jane came running in after break, and said that she had seen them smoking.
After searching their bags, she finds a packet of cigarettes, with two missing.
So far so good, but it’s Jane’s word against the two boys. The teacher needs the letters to prove her case. She bluffs, and get’s the friend into the headmasters office, and between the two of them convince him that they have enough evidence to prove him guilty. They thus pronounce him guilty, and he gets a sound caning.
Now for Johnny. Problem is, Johnny emphatically denies smoking and challenges them to produce the letters (which he is hiding in his underpants) to prove his guilt. He will also not give them the letters and quotes some vague, redundant school rule. Stalemate.
The Jacob Zuma legal team spent most of yesterday in the Pietermaritzburg High Court, attempting to convince Judge Phillip Levensohn not to sign a letter to the Mauritian Government requesting 13 documents held by them. These documents are diaries and corrospondence relating to the alleged request, and payment of a bribe to Zuma by arms manufacturer, Thint.
The other party to the bribe, Shabir Shaik, is currently serving a 15-year sentence for fraud and corruption for this same matter. He was convicted without direct access to these documents. An Appeal against the conviction and sentence was recently turned down. His legal team is currently pursuing an appeal in the Constitutional Court.
- If you have nothing to hide, why not just produce the letters and prove your innocence?
- If the “briber” has been found guilty in a court of law, surely the “bribee” is also guilty?
- What is this case costing the South African taxpayer, seeing that we are probably paying the Prosecution and Defences legal costs?
- Is this the man we’d like as President of South Africa?
- What are your underpants doing in Mauritius?