Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2006-09-08 Reporter: Ernest Mabuza

Zuma Trial Delay Not ‘There for the Asking’

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2006-09-08

Reporter

 Ernest Mabuza

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

The prosecution drew sharp questioning from Judge Herbert Msimang yesterday as it continued advancing reasons why the Pietermaritzburg High Court should grant the state a postponement in the corruption case against former deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint.

Msimang grilled prosecutor Billy Downer and inquired whether the state thought that the postponement was “there for the asking”.

“That’s the attitude I glean from the state’s case,” he said.

Msimang said Zuma’s corruption charge was similar to the one with which the state charged his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik. He asked why the state did not consider it prudent to continue with last year’s indictment provided to Thint and Zuma.

The state is asking that the case be postponed until the first court term next year. Zuma and Thint are opposing the application, proposing instead that the matter be struck from the roll.

The three-day application ended yesterday when Msimang adjourned the proceedings until September 20 for judgment.

Zuma had argued that the delays in his trial and another postponement could affect his chances of being considered for the African National Congress (ANC) leadership. He is the ANC deputy president.

Msimang also asked the state why it should not wait for the appeal by Shaik later this month before amending its indictment against Zuma and Thint.

Downer conceded that the Shaik trial was a “testing trial” before charging Zuma.

“When the appeal (in the Shaik case) was noted, you were in the same position as you were before the commencement of the Shaik trial,” Msimang said *1.

Downer said the state could not wait for the outcome of the Shaik appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal before finalising an indictment as the state did not want to be seen to be delaying the trial. He said the reason the state wanted to bring in new evidence after charging Zuma was that the existing case was not worth taking to court.

In response to accusations from Zuma and Thint that the state could not keep promises, Downer said it would provide the indictment by October 15 and it had delivered the KPMG forensic report on the promised date.

Downer also disputed claims that the state was using documents obtained illegally in compiling the KPMG forensic report. Law dictated that the state was allowed to use the documentation until the outcome of the appeals against the search-and-seizure operations was known.

The state had obtained warrants from Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe to search a number of premises to get further information in its case against Zuma. These included Zuma’s houses and the offices of his attorneys, Julekha Mahomed and Michael Hulley. Hulley was granted an order in the Johannesburg High Court declaring the seizures unlawful. Durban High Court Judge Noel Hunt declared in February that the search-and-seizures at Zuma’s house and Hulley’s office were unlawful. He ordered the state to return all documents seized. The state later filed a notice to appeal.

Downer said that where an appeal was noted, the operation and execution of an order was suspended.

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.


*1      Sauce for the Goose.


*2      Sauce for the Gander.