Publication: Mail and Guardian Issued: Date: 2006-09-07 Reporter: Sapa Reporter: Sibongakonke Shoba Reporter: Giordano Stolley

'Facts and Lies' at Zuma Trial

 

Publication 

Mail and Guardian
Date

2006-09-07

Reporter

Sibongakonke Shoba
Giordano Stolley
Sapa

Web Link

www.mg.co.za

 

"It is clear to anyone inside that court that the ship is sinking," Congress of South African Trade Unions general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi told the crowd outside the court.

"The facts and lies don't mix."

Vavi was speaking after Judge Herbert Msimang adjourned proceedings until Thursday morning.

In court Zuma's defence team rejected the state's invitation to allow the Pietermaritzburg High Court to decide whether documents taken in controversial search-and-seizure raid were admissible as evidence.

Advocate Kemp J Kemp told Judge Herbert Msimang that he would not be "accepting my learned friend's offer".

Kemp's statement was made shortly after advocate Nirmal Singh told the court that the trial could not continue until appeals against the raids, carried out by the Scorpions last year, had been resolved.

"It is my submission [the state] is in contempt of a court order," said advocate Nirmal Singh, who together with advocate Kessie Naidu represents Thint, the South African subsidiary of French arms company Thales.

It emerged earlier that a 500-page KPMG forensic report contained documents taken in search-and-seizure raids on the former deputy president's homes and the offices of his lawyer last August. The state had been ordered to return the documents.

Two of the raids were declared unlawful whereas the raid against Thint, Zuma's co-accused, was declared lawful. The unlawfulness of the raids was being appealed, with these challenges given as one of the reasons the state needed a postponement.

Singh said the fact that the National Prosecuting Authority had handed the documents to a third party, KPMG, was "double contempt".

"The state acted unlawfully. That is the real cause of the delay," said Singh.

Naidu questioned how the state expected the defence to indicate when they would be ready in the event of a postponement, when the defence still had no final indictment.

"This is putting the trailer before the bus," said Naidu.

The state earlier said it would have a final indictment ready by October 15.

Naidu said: "How can the state give an indictment based on matters that will be decided in the Supreme Court of Appeal [SCA]?". He was referring to the pending appeal by Zuma's financial adviser Schabir Schaik against his 15-year sentence for corruption and fraud.

The charges against Zuma and Thint emanate from Shaik's July 2005 conviction.

Naidu said that the current case would be affected by the SCA's ruling on the so-called encrypted fax and that it could not proceed.

The fax detailed a meeting at which Shaik allegedly negotiated a R500 000 a year bribe for Zuma from Thint. This was allegedly in exchange for protection from investigations into South Africa's multibillion-rand arms deal.

Kemp had earlier contended that the decision to prosecute Zuma was unconstitutional and illegal.

He asserted that in terms of the Constitution the National Prosecuting Authority had failed to inform the former deputy president that it had reviewed its earlier decision not to charge him.

Kemp said when National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) head Vusi Pikoli announced his intention to review the case he was constitutionally obliged to allow Zuma to make representations. He said Zuma had not been given that opportunity.

"It is quite clear that it was done contrary to the law. We say it was unconstitutional," said Kemp.

In response advocate Wim Trengove SC, appearing for the state, pointed out that the legislation Kemp used in his argument only applied when the NDPP overruled a subordinate director in the National Prosecuting Authority. *1

When Msimang asked why the case had been transferred to the Pietermaritzburg High Court without an indictment, state prosecutor Billy Downer said the state had not wanted the matter transferred there, and would have preferred to have obtained a postponement in the Durban Magistrate's Court.

"The state's proposal was resisted," said Downer. He said an agreement was reached with Zuma's defence team that the matter would go to the high court with the understanding that the state could continue its investigations and that the indictment would be amended.

Kemp shook his head as Downer explained the reasons for the case reaching the Pietermaritzburg High Court without a proper indictment.

The State is attempting to have the trial postponed, against the wishes of Zuma and Thint.

With acknowledgement to Sibongakonke Shoba, Giordano Stolley, Sapa and Mail & Guardian.


*1       Later on Thursday, Kemp J Kemp, for Zuma, conceded that the National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli did not act unconstitutionally when he decided to prosecute Zuma.

Kemp also conceded that the extension of the investigation into Zuma and Thint was lawful.

The Defences defences are going to porridge, reminding one of ill-conceived tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing (other than porridge).