CLEAN : S.Africa court rules Zuma should face almost 800 graft charges

The transcript discusses the decision made on April 1, 2009, by Mr. Machete to discontinue the prosecution of Mr. Zuma, which was deemed irrational and should be reviewed. It highlights the pressure Mr. Himself faced, leading to the decision, and emphasizes the importance of the oath of office to act independently. The transcript supports the continuation of charges against Jacob Zuma, viewing it as a victory for the rule of law, the Constitution, and accountability in South Africa.

What was the decision made on April 1, 2009, regarding Mr. Zuma's prosecution?

• To delay the prosecution

• To transfer the case to another court

• To discontinue the prosecution

• To continue the prosecution

Why was Mr. Machete's decision considered irrational?

• He followed all legal procedures

• He was under pressure and ignored his oath

• He consulted with legal experts

• He acted independently and without bias

What did Mr. Machete fail to consider when making his decision?

• The financial implications

• The media coverage

• The public opinion

• The importance of the oath of office

What is the significance of continuing the charges against Mr. Zuma?

• It delays justice

• It favors political interests

• It is a victory for the rule of law and accountability

• It undermines the rule of law

How is the continuation of charges against Mr. Zuma viewed politically?

• As a setback for the political party

• As a victory for political accountability

• As a minor political issue

• As irrelevant to political interests