After years of trying to get Jacob Zuma to stand trial over corruption charges, the NPA has decided to drop all charges against Zuma. Was the decision the right one? Ebrahim Moolla takes on Rebekah Kendal.

Ebrahim Moolla reckons the NPA's decision transcends the minutiae of the judicial system and speaks to a deeper, more primal justice.

For eight long years I have watched Jacob Zuma demonised, his convictions drawn and quartered, in a character assassination and political witchhunt so brutal that Lee Harvey Oswald would be proud.

A lesser man would have folded but the Prodigal Son took his ordeal in the dock in his stride to clear his name and in just a couple of weeks is set to return to lead SA into a new era. JZ critics who bemoan the passing of the rule of law never respected it in the first place — innocent until proven guilty is ingrained in popular culture.

But let us ignore political interference, the merits of pursuing an unwinnable case, letting the big fish off the hook and the case for public interest. It is a decision that transcends the minutiae of the judicial system of a justice deeper, more primal than that heard in the thwack of a judge's gavel. The reverberations of which will be felt through many years to come, much like Nelson Mandela's release from incarceration.

And like Madiba before him he is averse to holding grudges. The ivory tower brigade is throwing cognac out over perceived international derision but they discount Zuma's charisma: he easily had a press conference bristling with hard-nosed journos tittering.

The man blessed with an armoury of consummate leadership skills, so conspicuous in his handling of the KZN peace negotiations and before then as a key figure in the liberation movement, is the man who wields the power to unify and reconcile a fractured nation — more than Desmond Tutu's TRC ever could.

Zuma speaks to both the poor and big business in the same breath, dealing a coup de grace to tribalism while listening to 'De la Rey'. On 22 April, the people shall speak their piece… and justice will be served. That is democracy — there are no moral imperatives.

Rebekah Kendal reckons that the NPA's decision is, at best, baffling and, at worst, a travesty of justice…

I'm no legal buff, but I suspect that there was something very not right about the NPA's decision to drop all charges against Jacob Zuma.

The concept of 'right' doesn't leave much room for technical exemptions; it isn't the result of arithmetic involving two wrongs; and it certainly doesn't leave the majority of the country wondering whether or not their future president is a crook.

Hell, I'm not even sure if the decision was (technically) the correct one.

While Mokotedi Mpshe was delivering his disclaimer for the NPA's complete lack of moral fibre — which, if I gather correctly, was based in part on a ruling handed down in the British House of Lords by Lord Steyn (yes, the relevance to South African law is baffling) — two questions kept jostling for my brain's attention.

Question one: If Mokotedi Mpshe didn't act on the alleged interference (and we know that he didn't because Zuma was only charged after Polokwane and Mpshe claims that he knew nothing of the interference), how is it of any relevance to the purpose of the prosecution?

Question two: Why has this not resulted in more (rather than less) legal action?

Surely, if Leonard McCarthy and Bulelani Ngcuka are guilty of breaching the NPA act, they should be charged and tried? Currently it would seem that their guilt has simply been assumed — a trial by media as it were.

And surely Zuma and his legal team should be investigated for illegally possessing classified NIA tapes? For while Mpshe went to considerable lengths to clarify that the information on the tapes was legally obtained and that the NIA has subsequently declassified the tapes, he forgot to mention how Zuma and his team happened to get their hands on the tapes. The fact that Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley has used the 'confidentially' plea to avoid an explanation suggests that the methods were anything but legal.

And finally, surely it is in the public interest for a court of law to decide whether or not Jacob Zuma is guilty or whether he should be acquitted on the grounds of improper interference. As it stands, he will forever be shrouded in a cloud of suspicion.

But, as I said, I'm no legal buff.

As a South African citizen, however, I feel cheated. I feel cheated that my taxes have been wasted on this farce. I feel cheated over the fact that I will never know for sure whether or not my future president is a crook. And I feel cheated because this travesty of justice, like so many others, has simply been accepted with the tired dictum 'Well, what did you expect? This is Africa'.

Do you agree with Ebrahim or Rebekah? Post a comment below…

The beggar gauntlet Rebekah Kendal reckons that begging is bad for SA because it fosters a culture of dependency.

Visit our politics page Need the latest political news, features, interviews and profiles? Visit our dedicated page...

Behind closed doors Rebekah Kendal reckons that the real losers in the Percy saga are victims of domestic abuse.