Deputy president 'a victim of the NPA'

Advocate Willem Heath has joined the fray over the Schabir Shaik trial, accusing the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) of abusing the justice system to serve political ends.

"It is clear for all to see that the underlying motivation behind these 'Arms Deal Trials' is a power play for the leadership of the ANC," Heath said.

The former head of the Special Investigation Unit, established to probe corruption in South Africa, believes that Deputy President Jacob Zuma is a victim of the NPA's "abuse of justice". "It is my considered opinion that the Shaik prosecution has opened the door for probably the grossest political foul play in an arena where politics cannot be allowed."

Heath, who was excluded by the government from investigating corruption in the arms deal, made it clear that his comments were not directed at Judge Hilary Squires. He said Judge Squires can be commended for the flawless manner in which he presided over a difficult trial.

Heath believes the political implications of the trial started long before, when the head of the NPA, Bulelani Ngcuka, and Justice Minister Penuell Maduna publicly announced that they had prima facie evidence against Zuma, but still decided not to prosecute him. He said there is no reasonable legal principle or precedent in South Africa for not prosecuting in a case in which prima facie evidence is available.

"They convicted Zuma in the popular media before Shaik was even arraigned stamping on his constitutional rights to defend himself against charges in court."

Focusing on the specifics of the Shaik trial, Heath said statements have been made that the inference can be drawn that Zuma is guilty of corruption by association with Shaik. "The Honourable Justice Squires made several references to Zuma's relationship with Shaik and he made certain statements of condemnation of this relationship. Judge Squires did not err in his appraisal of the relationship in the relevant references in his judgement; however, it must be read in the context of the evidence he had been presented with."

On Judge Squires's statement that corruption cannot be committed in isolation, and one person cannot be charged singularly for a crime that takes at least two to commit, Heath says two scenarios have emanated from Ngcuka's infamous decision:

"If Zuma is not prosecuted and he is guilty, the interests of South Africa have not been served. It could be almost impossible to secure a conviction against Zuma through a 'second-take' of Shaik's trial.

"If Zuma is innocent and he is not prosecuted, his reputation will remain unjustly tarnished without the possibility of defending himself, again with Ngcuka having failed in his duties to serve the best interests of South Africa.

"Maybe even more importantly, had Zuma and Shaik been tried together, evidence could have surfaced to refute or rebut evidence that led to Shaik's conviction, and Zuma and Shaik could both have been acquitted. So in a sense, Shaik's rights were fundamentally undermined in that respect and the fairness of the prosecution, and I stress not the verdict of Judge Squires, could be questioned."

Heath believes that ultimately what is needed is a transparent investigation into the arms deal instead of "window-dressing and a blatant attempt to use the arms deal fiasco as the ideal springboard for political agendas and hidden motives".

He adds that organisations like Cosatu and the ANC Youth League (which have come out in support of Zuma) can play a vital role in demanding transparency, provided that their involvement reflects the dignity and aspirations of what they are trying to achieve.

Heath concluded: "It will be interesting to see whether this apparent abuse of justice will lead to a split in the ANC - maybe such a split is needed to at last ventilate the corrupters of the Arms Deal from the dark shadowy corners."

Meanwhile, the NPA has dismissed a report in yesterday's Mail & Guardian headlined, "Scorpions set to charge Zuma", saying the NPA is not, as suggested, "preparing the ground for charges against the Deputy President".

According to a statement from the NPA, only their National Director, Advocate Vusi Pikoli, can decide whether or not to prosecute and he is still studying the Shaik judgment. The statement said that Pikoli is concerned that incorrect statements in the article are attributed to employees of the NPA. "An internal investigation will be broadened to include the latest statements attributed to NPA employees by the newspaper."

On comments in the newspaper about Pikoli's trip to Chile with President Thabo Mbeki, the statement said that the trip was organised in April, long before the judgement in the Shaik trial.

With acknowledgements to Nalinin Naidoo and The Natal Witness.

At least The Natal Witness was able to correct the misspelled names from the original.