Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2006-09-01 Reporter: Ernest Mabuza Reporter:

No Abuse in Zuma Prosecution, State Argues

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2006-09-01

Reporter

 Ernest Mabuza

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

Former deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint could not seek a judicial review of the decision of the national director of public prosecutions to prosecute them, the state said in its heads of argument filed in the Pietermaritzburg High Court yesterday.

The state is applying for the postponement of the case in the court until the first court term next year, while Zuma and Thint have asked for the court to either grant a stay of prosecution or strike the matter off the roll. The case will be argued next week.

The state said Zuma and Thint were seeking a permanent stay of prosecution and other relief on the basis that the director abused his discretion to prosecute them. “Such an attempt is misconceived in law.”

It said the reasons why it had decided to prosecute the accused were irrelevant to the question of whether there had been an “unreasonable delay”. The accused had failed to make out any case that their right to a fair trial had been infringed.

The state said public interest demanded that a permanent stay should not be granted. “This case is about accusations of corruption of someone who held the second-highest public office in the land and who aspires to the highest office. He is alleged to have been corrupted inter alia by a multinational corporation of high international standing. The case is accordingly one of the highest public interest,” the state said.

It would not help Zuma and Thint to have the case struck off the roll because they would be better placed to protect themselves if the matter remained on the roll and subject to the control of the court.

The state disputed claims by Zuma that the date of the decision not to prosecute him, in August 2003, should be the date from which the delay in his trial should be calculated. It also disputed claims by Thint that the delay should be calculated from the start of the trial of Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, in October 2004.

The state said Zuma became an “accused person” when a decision to prosecute him was announced in June last year. It said Thint became an accused when it was served with the provisional indictment on November 4 last year.

Therefore, assuming that the trial would commence in March next year, the trial of Zuma would have been delayed for 20 months, while Thint’s would have been delayed for 16 months. “We submit that a delay of some 13 months in respect of (Zuma) … is not unreasonable and is modest compared to the typical systemic delays in high court trials.”

The state also said that Zuma had failed to substantiate the claim that the charges against him had rendered him “unemployed and quite unemployable”. “He does not indicate what employment he applied for, when or what response he received. He does not even indicate what sort of employment he is qualified for or interested in *1.”

It also dismissed Zuma’s complaint that the state had sought “strategic advantages” by prosecuting him after Shaik. It was the prerogative of the state to charge different accused in separate trials.

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.


*1       Primarily wonga splodging, interspersed with the not so odd bout of gathering of the knowledge carnal, plus some dancing and singing about automatic weapons.