Now we know why Jacob Zuma took that infamous shower! He was the
one violated, and - as the judge was at pains to point out - relying, of
course, on psychiatric science, this is the correct response of a rape
victim. A curse on his accuser, lying there is her shame and not making
any effort to wash it off! She should have known better.
And we also know that Jacob Zuma is a real man, 100% Zulu to boot.
He can spot a woman interested in him a kanga away. Even his
daughter was there to witness it, and she, of course, is completely
objective and is only interested in the cold hard facts, as our
esteemed judge was quick to recognize. Nothing subjective about a
daughter testifying on behalf of her father. Banish the thought. Our
esteemed judge did. The woman was inappropriate from beginning to
end. She 'wanted' something from Zuma, same as all the people who
constantly knocked on the door of this 'our man of the people',
she hung around when everybody else left, she dressed like a tart
(why, she did not even have on underwear!), she kept on trying to
distract 'our man of the people' away from his very important work, she
entered his room (long before he had any intentions of entering her), her
skin absorbed the baby oil (no expert forensic testimony here, only oral),
and then, she had the temerity to cry rape. Witch, she was looking for it.
Lucky we don't burn her at a stake (only her effigy and under garments)
but just send her into exile. We are such a forgiving people. She should
now be allowed to live her life in peace, enjoying all the democratic rights
that 'our man of the people' was willing to sacrifice his life for.
But one cannot help wondering. What did she have to gain? Surely with
her known HIV/Aids status she would want to live as stress-free a life
as possible. Surely she would not want to willingly bring anguish and
anxiety into her life. She must have known the toll a trial would take,
especially taking on someone so powerful?
One cannot help wondering. Had she maybe reached the point where
enough was enough! Where her outrage outweighed all other
considerations? Life, health, reputation, country? Was she just too angry?
Where she would finally say no, even if all would crucify her with their
own yeses. Was this just something she was simply doing for herself.
Finally! I wonder.
But what is most puzzling, but which for our esteemed judge, did not
seem to be all that material. How many of us leave the consensual bed
after a most 'delicious' encounter? How many of us leave the memory of
the foreplay (and let's not forget the baby oil), the glow of the
consummation, and the warmth of the embrace (especially after a hot
shower) to the cold and emptiness of the guest room? Why leave?
Especially when every intention until then had been to snare the man?
Why leave, when you've at last achieved what you set out to do?
And - if you were one of those proverbial hangers-on - wanting to take
advantage of the generosity of 'our man of the people', why not take
the lobola? After all, did you not earn it? Was that not your intention in
the first place? Why forego all? All future favors! All potential patronage!
So many questions, but such a definitive answer. Who, I wonder,
dare judge our judges!
- A. Non