Pretoria: Top prosecutor Bulelani Ngcuka spoke in riddles when explaining his decision not to prosecute Deputy President Jacob Zuma, a legal expert said yesterday.

"It's extremely odd, something I have not heard of before," said Hans Visser, expert in private law and defamation at the University of Pretoria.

He said Ngcuka's remarks did not explain why Zuma was not being taken to court for his alleged role in South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal.

The director of public prosecutions said on Saturday: "We have concluded that, while there is a prima facie case of corruption against the deputy president, our prospects of success are not strong enough ... That means that we are not sure if we have a winnable case. Accordingly, we have decided not to prosecute."

Visser said there was a contradiction in Ngcuka's comments. "What did he foresee could arise in a court case to upset his prima facie evidence? And, if he was aware of such factors, how could he claim to have prima facie evidence?  

"If a prosecutor has genuine prima facie evidence, he goes to court. If his evidence would not stand up in court, it is not of prima facie quality."

Visser said the Ngcuka-Zuma relationship was fascinating from a legal point of view. Zuma possibly had sufficient grounds to sue Ngcuka for defamation.

"If I had to advise the deputy president, I would say Ngcuka's defence had been weakened by the contradictory nature of his remarks."

Visser doubted Zuma would sue Ngcuka as this would keep the matter in the public arena.

"If he wants to stay on as deputy president, it would probably be better for him to let this matter die down as soon as possible."

With acknowledgements to Sapa and the Cape Times.