Zuma has a lot to explain to South Africans

Now that the Supreme Court of Appeal has set aside Judge Chris Nicholson's controversial judgment, Jacob Zuma should take voters into his confidence and answer the following questions:

Now that the Supreme Court of Appeal has set aside Judge Chris Nicholson's controversial judgment, Jacob Zuma should take voters into his confidence and answer the following questions:

l What was the purpose of his trips to London and Mauritius with Schabir Shaik because the trips were not sanctioned by the ANC and the government?

l Why did Zuma object to the NPA obtaining Alain Thetard's diary which confirms a meeting between him, Shaik and Thetard? Zuma also opposed an application by the NPA to investigate off-shore accounts in the UK.

l He must also explain why he did not heed Nelson Mandela's advice that he and the ANC should distance themselves from Shaik. Even after the advice from the icon of the struggle did Zuma and Mac Maharaj strengthen their relationship with Shaik.

l Zuma also failed to declare the R4 million he received from Shaik to Sars and Parliament. Now he must explain why.

l Lastly, Zuma has to explain why he wants to apply for a permanent stay of prosecution if he is innocent. Is it not to his advantage to defend his innocence in court as he once called for his day in court?

We are happy that Thabo Mbeki has been vindicated.

Zuma was correct when he said: "We still have sober judges in South Africa who do not smoke zoro."

Phillip Mhlongo, Newlands West

X