The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

President Zuma stated during an interview aired on e.tv this morning, when asked about the prospect of granting a presidential pardon to Schabir Shaik:

"Why should I pardon him when he has not applied?"

He also stated:

"I have nothing in front of me. If there was an application before me, you should ask the question. Why should I respond if I do not have the application before me?"

Unfortunately for the President, the horse has already bolted.

On 19 October last year, the Democratic Alliance established that Schabir Shaik had applied for a presidential pardon. An official in the private secretary's office of the Presidency confirmed to the DA, after consulting a pardons database: "He did apply." The Presidency subsequently issued a statement confirming this. A full copy of that statement reads as follows:

"Application of Mr Shabir Shaik for Pardon
19 October 2009

The Presidency received an application for pardon from Mr Shabir Shaik last year, on 24 April 2008.

The application will be processed like all other applications. The President must consider every application brought before him in terms of his Constitutional responsibilities, as outlined in Section 84 (2) (j) of the Constitution of the Republic.

Any queries contact Presidential Spokesperson Vincent Magwenya on 072 715 0024

ISSUED BY
THE PRESIDENCY
UNION BUILDINGS
TSHWANE"

So one has to ask what the President is playing at by now claiming that Shaik had not applied for a pardon. Is this a downright mistruth? Has he just forgotten? Whatever the case, it is clearly not true that Shaik - who has himself been quoted demanding a presidential pardon when speaking to reporters - has not applied for a pardon.

An application for a presidential pardon made by a man who was sentenced to 15 years as a consequence of his corrupt relationship with the President is hardly a trivial matter. If Shaik were to be pardoned, it would signify that even where the justice system prevails, its impact and rulings can be undermined by a political party that is determined to bend the rule of law to suit its interests. The fact that the President has misled the public on this matter warrants an urgent explanation.

It is starting to look as if the President is concealing something much bigger, and that is a quid pro quo pardon of a variety of offenders, none of whom qualify to be pardoned.