Legal Affairs Correspondent

Former deputy president Jacob Zuma will get his chance to respond to charges that he raped a 31-year-old family friend when his trial resumes in the Johannesburg High Court on Monday.

Judge Willem van der Merwe yesterday turned down Zuma’s application for the dismissal of the rape charge, saying he could not agree that evidence led by the state so far was of such poor quality that it could not be accepted.

When Zuma was charged with raping a family friend at his Johannesburg home on November 2, he had said he hoped to address the charge in a court of law.

“It is only there where I will have the constitutional right and opportunity to respond to these allegations,” he said at the time.

Zuma has denied raping the woman. He claims he had consensual sex with the HIV-positive woman.

The defence made the application in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, arguing that the state had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zuma had raped the woman.

In his ruling, Van der Merwe said that he could not ignore the evidence led so far by the state. The judge also said that a finding of mens rea (criminal intent) to rape could be made even if the defence led no more evidence to the contrary.

“It has always been my practice not to discuss or analyse evidence led by the state so far. The fact that nothing is said at this stage is for obvious reasons.”

Zuma’s advocate, Kemp Kemp, had “made a detailed analysis of the evidence so far, and the accused is entitled to hear how I evaluate that evidence, which I will do at the appropriate time”, Van der Merwe said.

The judge also said he was not taking into account an application by the defence for the evidence of the two police investigators to be regarded as inadmissible as this did not form part of the defence’s section 174 application.

Van der Merwe said the question of whether the policemen’s evidence was admissible was a factual issue on which he would decide at the end of the trial.

The defence had asked the court to rule as inadmissible the evidence of the policemen because Zuma had not been read his rights when they visited him at his home.

With acknowledgement to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.