Publication: Sunday Independent Issued: Date: 2006-08-20 Reporter: Jeremy Gordin Reporter:

Zuma's Counsel to Reply in Trial's Next Round

 

Publication 

Sunday Independent
Date

2006-08-20

Reporter

Jeremy Gordin

Web Link

www.sundayindependent.co.za

 

Tomorrow will see the completion of another round in the trial of Jacob Zuma and Thint - it is deadline day for the reply by the defence teams to the state's affidavits of Monday - and the smart money says there is going to be even more dirty laundry on show by Tuesday morning than there was this week.

The affidavits filed by the state on Monday - as per the order of trial Judge Herbert Msimang - were responses to those of Zuma, the former deputy president, and Thint, the local arm of Thales, the French arms manufacturer and dealer.

They are on trial in the Pietermaritzburg high court for alleged corruption and fraud. The trial is a direct consequence - so the state says - of the 2005 sentencing to 15 years in jail of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik for, among other things, having had a "generally corrupt relationship" with Zuma.

On July 31, the first day of the trial, in response to the state's request for an adjournment until 2007, Zuma and Thint applied for charges against them to be struck off the roll.

Both argued that justice delayed was justice denied. More specifically, Zuma said he was the victim of a conspiracy to render him politically powerless.

Thint said that during negotiations before Shaik's trial there were clear indications from Penuell Maduna, the former minister of justice, and Bulelani Ngcuka, the former national director of public prosecutions, that the state was not interested in charging Thint.

"The Empire Strikes Back" and "State Rolls Out Big Guns against Zuma" were some of the newspaper headlines topping the state affidavits, which was not surprising since the main state affidavits came from Vusi Pikoli, the national director of public prosecutions; Maduna; Ngcuka; and Leonard McCarthy, the head of the Directorate of Special Operations, better known as the Scorpions.

Pikoli vehemently denied that Zuma was on trial as a result of a political conspiracy, that he (Pikoli) had in any way colluded with President Thabo Mbeki in charging Zuma, and that Zuma had been fired from the deputy presidency because Pikoli had planned to charge him.

Maduna, the minister of justice when Shaik was charged, lambasted Zuma for claiming - in an "opportunistic and squalid" way - that he (Zuma) had been targeted by the National Prosecuting Authority to destroy his reputation and "political role-playing ability". He said Zuma had offered no hard facts to substantiate his claim but had relied on press reports, rumour and speculation.

Maduna denied making any guarantees to Thint and said that, in any case, Thint had effectively reneged on its promise to him to produce - in exchange for the dropping of charges against it in the Shaik trial - an affidavit related to a vital encrypted fax that could be used in the Shaik trial.

Maduna also suggested that he had held discussions just before the Shaik trial with Thint's present counsel, Kessie Naidu, SC, about the fax. Until now he had honoured the confidentiality of these talks but, if it were necessary, perhaps he would not do so in the near future.

Ngcuka echoed what Maduna had to say about Thint and added that he had not been in a conspiracy against Zuma. On the contrary, said Ngcuka, his "delicacy" in dealing with Zuma had been at great personal cost.

The longest affidavit - some 250 pages of the 500-page bundle - was by McCarthy. He presented a summary of everything that had happened vis-a-vis Zuma by way of demonstrating that the state had been dancing as fast as it possibly could.

McCarthy rejected the notion that anyone at the Scorpions had been driven by any ulterior motive. He said he had been party to certain "confidential" talks with Naidu, and could talk about them if it was necessary.

It seems apparent that the state might be aiming to have Naidu recused as Thint's counsel - and it certainly looks as though the Thint affidavits tomorrow will address this issue as well as the "relationship" between Maduna and Naidu and Maduna and Thint.

Leaving aside the juicy and venomous stuff and the swapping of insults with Zuma, however, was there anything of substance in the state affidavits? Yes: McCarthy undertook that the court, Zuma and his lawyers would be handed the forensic auditors' report on September 5 and that they would be given an amended indictment by October 15.

Thus he has lobbed the ball back into the defence's court. If the defence can have access to these documents relatively quickly - by October 15, according to McCarthy - what will their response be? That they need time to study the documents, effectively adjourning the case until 2007? Or will they say it is all too little, too late? And what will the judge ultimately rule?

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and Sunday Independent.