Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2006-09-01 Reporter: Ingrid Oellermann Reporter: Jeremy Gordin

State Rejects Zuma's Defence Claim

 

Publication 

The Star
Date 2006-09-01

Reporter

Ingrid Oellermann, Jeremy Gordin

Web Link

www.iol.co.za

 

'It is vital that Zuma's guilt or innocence be exposed'

Skimpy, speculative and without substance - this is how the state referred to Jacob Zuma's claims that he has been damaged politically and personally by having to wait so long to be tried.

In its 141-page heads of argument, prepared by Wim Trengove SC and put in to the Pietermaritzburg High Court yesterday, the state argues that Zuma's claim that his chances of becoming a leader of the ANC and the country may be thwarted if the current charges are still pending in 2007 is, at best, speculative.

The state argues there is no evidence to suggest the criminal trial will not have been concluded by the December 2007 ANC elections to which Zuma was referring.

The state also took issue with Zuma's claim that certain individuals would seek to "exclude (him) from any meaningful political role" if the trial were pending, saying Zuma had not identified these "shadowy" individuals.

The "prosecuting authorities cannot be held hostage to the accused's hopes to stand for high office at the end of 2007".

It was argued that if Zuma "will indeed at the end of next year be a candidate for high public office, then it is all the more important that his prosecution should not be stifled.

"If he is innocent, then it is of vital importance … that his innocence be established. If he is guilty, it is vitally important that his guilt be exposed."

The state also hit back at the defence for what it terms "gratuitous insults", referring to comments that the state had been "misleading", "disingenuous", "less than frank" and "has acted scandalously".

Arguing that its postponement bid is not unreasonable, the state says Zuma became an accused on June 20 2005, and arms firm Thint and Thint representative Pierre Moynot on November 4 2005, so a delay of about 13 months in respect of Zuma and nine months in respect of his co-accused "is modest compared to the typical systemic delays in High Court trials".

Also, they suggest the prosecution is not to blame for the delays, "while the accused elected to pursue a strategy of litigation" arising from search and seizure raids at 22 premises on August 18 last year (when about 93 000 documents were seized)".

One of the documents the state seeks clarity on is Zuma's official diary, to which the prosecution has not had access.

The state detailed the scale and complexity of the investigation, which it says is illustrated by the length of the forensic accountants' report.

In the Schabir Shaik trial, the report was 250 pages long, with 25 files of annexures. This report is expected to be "much longer".

The prosecution say the forensic accountant report "is near completion" and promise it will be delivered by Tuesday. They also undertake to provide a revised indictment by October 15.

The state will argue before Judge Herbert Msimang that a permanent stay of prosecution is a "remedy of last resort" to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. There was a "range of lesser remedies" for an unreasonable delay.

With acknowledgements to Ingrid Oellermann, Jeremy Gordin and The Star.