Our Contact point: at the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference, has seen, in the press: the recent judgement on the arms deal curruption case

(Scripturelink Voter's Guide)

Article by Marc Aupiais

I, and others on their press releases list: have received an email basically showing that representation of the Bishops, has heard the recent judgment, and seem to be watching events unfolding in the press. We have not, however, had therein: a direct statement clearly on a perspective. So far, they simply brought attention to the verdict, to us, and others who were emailed by our contact there.

I do not endorse the following link, but a source in the hierarchy, sent it to me, so I thought it likely is somewhat accurate (The article), the full judgment (linked to in the article, and indirectly in the email), also: I do not guarantee, nor does this mean that our contact guarantees such.

To my knowledge, they have yet to make any statements as to the current judgment. Representation of the hierarchy, certainly has seen, and is clearly interested in it's importance. It means Jacob Zuma can be retried in court.

On our own analysis, this is ours, not theirs:
It also puts into question the disposing of previous President Thabo Mbeki, who was made to resign, by a Zuma lead ANC, and has implications for the upcoming elections: expected this year.

I do not endorse the following links to the Secular, and Independent : South Africa's "Mail and Guardian": We have not vetted these for accuracy, nor can we guarantee content: These are based on communication with a source within the Hierarchy in South Africa: who simply wanted to alert us and others as to the goings ons occurring, and so: we cannot say either us, or them endorse this source: as we do not have enough information to know how they feel about it. We ourselves do not endorse such, our view is in our article on this: we have not yet read this other article, and therefore cannot endorse it: however, we generally trust much of the accuracy of the facts, in the Mail and Guardian, due to their history, even though we do not guarantee such, nor endorse them, or any of their articles, whatsoever: Also, their world view, and perspective, is not always in line with ours; nor do we endorse their columns nor do we endorse their columnists, or credibility via this:

Mail and Guardian Article (not an endorsement):

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-12-court-opens-way-for-new-zuma-charges

Full judgement: Mail and Guardian (not an endorsement):

http://www.mg.co.za/uploads/zumajudgement.pdf

We do neither endorse article content, nor can we endorse these perspectives and views. They are purely the views of those expressing them, and we cannot be held responsible for them. They are not ours, and do not necessarily reflect our views, nor can these perspectives be said to represent those of the Bishops, or any affiliated with them. Nor can we as yet give you their perspective, we can only speculate, which we may do later, and did in (Bloemfontein; South Africa: Zuma Trial Back On: NPA wins: previous judge had no right to submit his "political" opinions 12 / Jan / 2009 ).

Should they desire a press release: we will of course inform you of this: however, there does seem to be interest in this issue: and they do seem to be watching events, as a church hierarchy should be doing in such circumstances.