Zuma Rolls Out Big Guns [The Star, 2005-10-11]

Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2005-10-11 Reporter: Jeremy Gordin Reporter: Nalisha Kalideen Reporter:

Zuma Rolls Out Big Guns

Publication	The Star
Date	2005-10-11
Reporter	Jeremy Gordin, Nalisha Kalideen
Web Link	www.thestar.co.za

High-powered legal eagles to fight trial postponement

Jacob Zuma is bringing out the big guns - and he is making it clear that the National Prosecuting Authority will not intimidate him.

The embattled former deputy president resolved to take his full legal team to the Durban Magistrate's Court this morning to fight the state's planned adjournment of his trial.

The ANC deputy president is facing two corruption charges, stemming from his relationship with his convicted former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik.

Zuma briefly appeared in court in June and was not asked to plead.

Today Zuma was due to appear with a team that includes not only his attorney, Michael Hulley, but also Kessie Naidu SC and a number of other senior counsel.

His decision is apparently another move in the legal war being waged with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

In addition, the big guns on his team plan to launch a barrage - based on section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act - in the direction of regional magistrate Bilkish Asmal.

Section 342A deals with "unreasonable delays in trials", and one of its clauses states that the court needs to consider "the effect of the delay on the personal circumstances of the accused and witnesses", as well as "actual or potential prejudice caused to (the state or) the defence by the delay, including a weakening of the quality of evidence, the possible death or disappearance or non-availability of witnesses (and) problems regarding the gathering of evidence".

A legal source, who did not want to be named, said in Durban yesterday: "Think about it. A great deal of the Zuma case has to do with alleged payments to black economic empowerment initiatives *1.

"Now perhaps someone like the late Brett Kebble might have been called eventually to validate or disavow defence claims on such matters.Yet Kebble is not going to be able to give evidence, is he?"

The defence will vehemently oppose the NPA's request for an adjournment for further investigation, in order to pre-empt moves to formulate additional charges against Zuma.

Zuma's team has indicated that if the NPA was ready to charge him on June 29, then it stood to reason that it had a case it was ready to present.

Hulley has written to Scorpions prosecutor Anton Steynberg SC, stating that both Zuma and the administration of justice would be prejudiced by further delays.

The NPA has already made it clear that its investigations have not been concluded and that no undertaking had been given that it would be ready for trial by
today.

Last Thursday, Zuma's legal team applied to have the Durban High Court order the return of documents taken in August from Zuma's homes and Hulley's office.

The Scorpions yesterday stated their intention of opposing the application.

If the High Court orders the return of Zuma's documents, then the prosecution will have to be restricted to the same counts on which Shaik was convicted.

In June, Shaik was sentenced to 15 years on two counts of corruption, emanating from a series of payments of R1,2-million made to Zuma while he held various local and national government posts.

Meanwhile, the pro-Zuma vigil promised by the South African Communist Party, the ANC, Cosatu and the South African National Civic Organisation began shortly after the scheduled 6pm start yesterday.

Last week, the tripartite alliance secretariat in KwaZulu Natal said it had expected a minimum of 1 000 people to attend the vigil.

Security around the Durban Magistrate's Court was expected to be tight this morning.

Notices around the court building stated that in the matter of the "State vs Jacob Zuma", all court business would get under way
after 11am.

No people were to be allowed into the building unless they were part of Zuma's team and family. Only accredited members of the media would be allowed inside.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin, Nalisha Kalideen and The Star.

*1 Maybe the beans might get spilt on the vexatious matter of BEE, but this is more a matter of a white foreign Frenchman giving a local politician (hue and mellanin factor irrelevant) a bribe of R500 000 per annum.

The deal was offered by the briber, the deal was accepted by the bribee, the record of the deal was confirmed by the briber, the record of the deal was confirmed under oath as authentic by the briber, the deal was consummated in the form of part of the funds making up the deal being transferred by the briber to the bribee.

This is a legally factual reality that even four senior counsel, three junior counsel, an instructing attorney and any number of legal assistants will find dismally incircumventable.

This trial is going to be almost exclusively on legal-technical points and very little of evidentiary points.

The games have begun.

For whoever's paying the legal bills, let these games be short and sweet.