Thank you very much for inviting COSATU to address this forum on the important question of judicial independence. Despite the late notice, I have agreed to come for two reasons. First, because of my deep respect for Justice Arthur Chaskalson and Professor David Unterhalter. Second, it is because this gives me a platform to set the record straight on COSATU's position on the subject matter.

Society is being presented with a story, largely by the commercial media, that institutions of democracy, in particular the judiciary, is under threat. Evidence for this is seemingly pronouncements by COSATU, ANC and SACP. I strongly submit that this case is based on shoddy reporting and evidence. Instead it amounts to a campaign to silence COSATU and its allies on the critical question of the role of the Judiciary.

This is ironic, because democracy thrives in an environment of open and fearless debate. No institutions or subject matter should be placed beyond public discourse. When we differ with pronouncement by others it does not make us right all the time, hence our views should be subjected to scrutiny and discussion - rather than portrayed in a sensational manner that aims to kill debate. Engage us; don't silence us is the message I would like to drive home today!

COSATU has a right, guaranteed in the Constitution, to contribute to the debate about our unfolding democracy and the conduct of its institutions. South Africa is a diverse society and only through dialogue can we find each other. However, there must be rules of engagement in this debate - and in my view the sensational reporting of our pronouncement flouts all accepted rules of discourse.

Most of the time, South Africans form their opinions on organisations and personalities on the basis of what they read, hear or see from the media. The media is a very powerful force in society. Just three very rich companies, whose reporting and editorials does not always reflect the interests of the people we represent, own 95% of weekly and daily newspapers.

In a class based society it is unavoidable that the media would reflect the interests of their rich and powerful owners. The media is however an important player in our fledging democracy and has the responsibility to report fairly. However, it should not be considered a power in itself that cannot be challenged.

COSATU as the organisation of the workers that seeks to speak for the poor and the weak must contest for hegemony in a terrain that is not of our choosing. We do not have access to the mass media and that is why we have to participate in every possible forum to counter their propaganda and our misrepresentation. In many cases we do not succeed to set the record straight even though we try hard.

There is a huge outcry in our society by some that the judiciary in under attack, as judges and judgements are beyond debate. Newspapers are full of headlines warning society about the threat to our Constitution, rule of law, judiciary and/or even our democracy and media freedoms.

Some genuinely have come to accept that indeed such a threat does exist and is formidable. Many, in particular in the opposition benches, have not wasted time to exploit the anxiety and the high profile of the debate to advance their historic mission to present the ANC and its alliance formations as a bunch of thugs who represent a threat to constitutional democracy. Such a caricature of the ANC and the alliance is bad and must be dispelled.

I suspect that your reason for inviting me stems from this discussion and specific allegations in the media that COSATU and its allies represent a threat to the independence of the judiciary.

Let me for the record state categorically that COSATU not only respects the independence of judiciary but actually regards it as the corner stone of our hard-won democracy. It is just a myth driven mainly by media hysteria, that we have no respect for these pillars of our democracy.

It is a myth that we are a threat to our Constitution and the institutions flowing from it. No matter how many times this untruth is peddled it will not change the fact that COSATU and the rest of the formations who fought a long and hard struggle to win this constitutional based democracy are not a threat to our democracy.

COSATU, and the individuals who lead it - guided by the Freedom Charter, which insisted that "all must be equal under the law" - have spent all their lives struggling to free South African from the atrocities of apartheid and to win freedom and democracy.

We have always been the strongest fighters for multi-party democracy, a free media, an independent judiciary, and most of all, a constitution that is the supreme law of the land, and our position has never changed. COSATU as the organisation of workers and therefore the weak and the vulnerable in a capitalist society will be the last organisation to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.

It is the most vulnerable people that we represent who most need the protection of a constitutional democracy and the rule of law. We fought hard for the protection of workers, socio-economic rights, participatory, representative, accountable democracy that are now enshrined in the Constitution. Flowing from the constitution we fought hard to entrench those freedoms through legislation to protect and entrench the rights of all South African.

Yet, the rich wanted a limited low-intensity democracy that protects their privileges. As an example the labour laws were bitterly opposed by the powerful, rich and privileged bosses. The rich and the powerful don't like laws because they have power to impose their will on the vulnerable members of the society.

They don't like a strong state, especially one that intervenes on behalf of the weak and vulnerable because they believe this dilutes their power. Freedom to them means a right to use their power freely to pursue their interests in society. To the weak and vulnerable it means freedom from being bullied by the interests of an extremely powerful in society.

The poor also want protection from the abuse of power by anyone, including the state. In a more positive light, they need the guarantee that the state will intervene to protect them against the ravages of the capitalist economy.

The Courts play an important role not only in interpreting the law but also in balancing the rights of individuals and groups. They are therefore an essential pillar of democracy and guarantee the right of recourse against administrative and other decision be they by the state or capital.

In my view, this debate on the threat of the judiciary and the constitution is a non-issue. The issue is something else, which I will address today. The issue is that one issue - and one issue only - that divides our society and therefore our organisations! This is society is divided by the Jacob Zuma matter.

COSATU and many others believe that there is a political conspiracy to deal with him. Yet others in society differ and have a right to. Where we draw the line is the attacks on an individual's dignity without giving the courts an opportunity to make their own determination.

We are disturbed by the tenor of the media reports and utterances from opinion makers which have already found comrade the ANC President guilty as charged, even if no court has made such a determination. This is in my view undermines the role of the Constitution and the Courts more than anything else. All of us are granted the right to dignity and a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty.

Everything else, in particular the debate about the constitutional democracy, rule of law, independence of the judiciary flows from that division. Think about it - before June 2005, which is the date that ANC President Jacob Zuma was dismissed as the Deputy President of the Republic, there was no debate about threat to independence of the judiciary and or our constitutional democracy.

I have been the General Secretary of COSATU throughout the period of this saga. I have seen sentiments forming and entrenching amongst leaders and members of COSATU. I have also seen those sentiments growing and eventually entrenching in the SACP and ANC conferences.

COSATU believes that the ANC President is being targeted because of the following:

1. We believe that if there was a case against Jacob Zuma he should have been charged way back in 1999 and/or 2000 when the NPA started to leak information in the media that he is being investigated. As result, believe me, we would have not seen the level of mobilisation we have seen in his support. The fact that the state took so many years to investigate whilst leaking information to the media made many to start asking a basic question - why is the man not being charged so that he may have the opportunity to defend himself in court. That is where workers have consistently argued that justice delayed is justice denied.

2. The decision to prosecute Jacob Zuma was selective. The very people pushing for prosecution have opposed COSATU's call for a full judicial inquiry into the arms deal to identify all those who may have been involved in corruption. Only Zuma has been targeted.

3. We believe it was wrong for the investigators to launch a media trial by leaking information in their hands to media instead of approaching Courts to seek a conviction. The media have seized on these leaks to create the impression that he is already guilty as charged.

4. We believe it was wrong for the then NPA Director to convene an off- the- record media briefing with certain black journalists, thereby launching a media trial and winning a public opinion instead of approaching the Courts.

5. We believe it was wrong for the former NPA Director Bulelani Ngcuka flanked by the then Justice Minister Pennuell Maduna to effectively declare Jacob Zuma guilty of corruption when he said in 2003 that there was a "prima faci" case for charging Jacob Zuma, but that he would not be charged because the case would be unwinnable. In our view they should have kept quiet rather that let Zuma hang in the court of public opinion.

6. We believe it was wrong not to charge Jacob Zuma alongside Shabir Shaik, considering that the two were supposed to be in cahoots.

7. We believe it was wrong for Zuma to be dismissed as the Deputy President before he has been convicted in the court of law. We saw this from the point of view of a justification to satisfy what we have now come to believe to be a concerted campaign to deal with an individual.

8. We objected to the charges he faced thereafter because we saw them as forming part of the concerted campaign to persecute and not prosecution.

9. We reacted with anger when the NPA raided his houses and lawyers frantically trying to find evidence two months after it decided to charge him. We argued that in a normal case investigators investigate, and take their evidence to court. In this case they charge and then investigate.

10. We nevertheless accompanied him to court only to find out that the NPA was not ready to charge him now on the sixth year after it started investigating him. When Judge Qedusisi Msimang Pietermaritzburg High Court in September 2006, struck the case from the roll of the court and made the criticism he made against the NPA we felt vindicated.

11. Ever since the NPA has been arguing that their case depends upon the evidence seized in these raids yet all along we were told that the state would have enough ammunition to use on the basis of the evidence presented in the Shabir Shaik trial. This simply deepened our suspicions of a political trial.

12. Other recent developments, including the ‘Special Browse Report', the unresolved emails saga and the suspension of Vusi Pikoli further point to the state institutions being used to fight factional political battles.

13. The latest proposal - to begin the trial in April 2009, eight years after they started their investigation, and precisely when the elections are likely to take place - smacks even more strongly of a political manoeuvre to discredit Jacob Zuma with allegations of corruption just when he is leading the ANC into its election campaign.

The process of the so-called corruption charges against Jacob Zuma has long lost any credibility in the eyes of many. It is for this reason that we supported him to use every legal means to ensure that there is a permanent stay of prosecution. Again some, who have forgotten that it is actually the NPA that delayed charging him for six years, now blame the victim who is using all legal means to fight for his rights for delaying his trial. The silence of many scholars when an individual's rights have been violated for such a long period of time only to find their voice now only serves to deepen divisions in society and not to heal them.

Yes there have been occasions when those who believe there is a conspiracy to destroy an individual and that state institutions have been manipulated to pursue factional battles in the democratic movement have used rather strong language and badly formulated statements. This includes the use of the word "kill" including by myself. I submitted a full statement explaining this remark in the SA Human Rights Commission. Again I believe the media simply ignored that in order to drive the campaign of painting a negative image of COSATU and me in the eyes of people. The fact that I expressed regret and admitted that the statement "kill" was too strong and jars people's sensitivities went unreported.

Again that statement was not made in order to intimidate the judiciary and to undermine the constitution and the institutions of our democracy. This I fully explained. But again the media has no interest in the truth but in sensationalism that will sell newspapers.

On occasions COSATU, just like every other South African, has condemned courts' judgments. On many other occasions we have welcomed courts' judgments. This will always be a consistent feature of a democracy. When on few occasions we disagree with particular judgments it cannot be correct to paint us as attackers of the independence of the judiciary. Judges criticize each other all the time. They change the findings of one another almost weekly. Nobody interprets that as an assault on the independence of the judiciary.

The headlines are prompted by some genuine criticisms of particular judicial decisions, which are then conflated into a supposed attack on the judiciary as a whole. Those being criticised hide behind the spurious argument that an attack on their decisions is an attack on the judicial system, and the constitution.

It is a way of trying to stifle debate and create unnecessary divisions and fears about a threat to democracy. Judges are not infallible and should be subjected to discussion, especially when they enter into the public arena themslelves. Nonetheless, even where we have criticized judges we always respect the institution and have never mobilized our members to destroy the judiciary. We understand that you will not always win!

We are raising these questions and criticisms precisely because we support the constitution and judicial independence and are concerned that this is being undermined in some cases such as the story of the ANC Presient will tell. When there is a real threat to the constitution, be assured that COSATU's two million members will be in the front line of the battle to defend it, including with our lives.

At the same time we call upon all democrats to defend the right enshrined in the Constitution and not to be threatened by the shrill voices of the media. In democratic discourse we attempt to persuade each other and debate is essential. As I said earlier engage us don't silence us!

This s is the text of the input by Zwelinzima Vavi, General Secretary of COSATU, to the Gordon Institute of Business Science forum, Johannesburg, August 20 2008