The Scottish courts have a useful verdict to draw on in addition to "guilty" and "not guilty". When there is not enough evidence to convict a suspect, but the court is not convinced that he or she is innocent, it can bring a verdict of "not proven". Technically, both "not guilty" and "not proven" result in an acquittal - but the latter can be a source of grim consolation to lawyers and the public."Not proven" may be as good a summary as any after the National Prosecuting Authority's (NPA) decision to drop corruption charges against Jacob Zuma. The reason, said the hapless acting head of the NPA, Mokotedi Mpshe, was that it had emerged that the legal processes in prosecuting Zuma were flawed. "In hindsight, shit, sorry," Mpshe was reported as saying about his earlier denial of any political meddling. "As an officer of the court I feel personally wronged and betrayed that on a number of occasions I have given evidence under oath that there has not been any meddling or manipulation."
Cynics - and there are many - believe that another reason would have been found, if necessary, to drop the pursuit of Zuma. As it was, the decision can hardly have been unanimous within the NPA, given the extraordinary time it took to reach - so there must have been reasonable grounds for proceeding. And if the process was indeed tarnished, why could that not have been exposed in a court of law? Quite apart from anything else, Schabir Shaik was convicted of bribery and sentenced to 15 years. Bribery cannot be achieved in isolation, and the court found that Shaik's partner was Zuma. A reasonable basis, one would have thought, to at least get the matter to court.
The NPA must now stand accused of both cowardice and incompetence. It could have chosen to proceed, given the evidence that we know was gathered over the years, but it has been using its own feet for target practice. From the day that former director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka said there was a prima facie case against Zuma, but that he had decided not to prosecute, there has been a strong impression of an organisation uncertain of its ground and open to political manipulation. As for Zuma, what more is there to say about a man who should have been embarrassed out of high office long ago? The fact that the ANC does not regard him as a liability at the polls is a sad commentary on a party that was once respected for its values and on the electorate that will return it to power this month.
Zuma may well turn out to be an amiable president who has the common touch, with a delivery record no less bad than his predecessor's. And many business people who long for certainty and have little instinctive interest in politics are relieved that the long-running saga has ended.
If they had been Americans in 1974, they would probably have agreed with President Gerald Ford when he explained his pardon of Richard Nixon for any offences committed in the Watergate scandal: "During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarised in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad." There is a strong view that the damage that would be done by prosecuting a sitting president would outweigh the compromises that have now been made.
It is tempting merely to feel relief that the legal proceedings have ended. But it is not the end of the story. What we have seen is the triumph of cynicism, not of law. The cloud over Zuma will not clear. The allegations will not go away, because they have not been tested - they are "not proven".
Soon the pressures of high office will close in on Zuma. He will no longer be able to tell every audience he addresses what it wants to hear - a trick he has certainly mastered. He will have to form an ANC administration that can no longer assume it is electorally impregnable. When the strains emerge, sooner than we think, the ANC may regret not having put its faith in a man of demonstrable substance.
