Zuma Ridicules Pikoli's Story [The Star, 2006-08-23]

Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2006-08-23 Reporter: Jeremy Gordin Reporter:

Zuma Ridicules Pikoli's Story

Publication	The Star
Date	2006-08-23
Reporter	Jeremy Gordin
Web Link	www.thestar.co.za

'He must have discussed me with Mbeki'

Jacob Zuma has again brought up President Thabo Mbeki's alleged role in sacking him as his deputy, as well as attacking the decision to charge him with corruption and fraud.

Zuma said yesterday that the version of what happened in June last year - when Zuma was both fired and charged - given by Vusi Pikoli, the national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), was "untenable and falls to be rejected".

In an affidavit before the Pietermaritzburg High Court, Pikoli says that the decision to prosecute Zuma was made by himself and his staff alone after the corruption and fraud trial of Schabir Shaik ended with the judge's finding of a "generally corrupt relationship" between Shaik and Zuma.

But responding yesterday, Zuma said: "The judgment … in Shaik's case was delivered … on 2 June 2005. The judgment was delivered on national free-to-air television. I believe it is fair to say that the broadcasting of the judgment gripped the country's attention and dominated the media …

"The speculation and debate concerning my position as deputy president reached fever pitch.

"At the height of these events and for a period of four days between 6 and 9 June 2005, (Pikoli) states that he stayed at the same hotel in Chile with (Mbeki) but that he did not discuss with the president the question of whether I would be charged.

"I respectfully submit that Pikoli's version is untenable and falls to be rejected on the papers.

"To make matters worse," said Zuma, Pikoli had told the court that Mbeki, having returned to South Africa from Chile, had convened a joint sitting of the houses of parliament on June 14 2005, so as to sack Zuma - "without so much as having discussed with the NDPP whether I would be charged".

Zuma said Mbeki "would hardly have done" what he had done (ie fired Zuma) if there had existed the slightest possibility that the NDPP would decide not to charge Zuma after all.

"I find the assertion (by Pikoli) of no discussions (between Mbeki and Pikoli) rather improbable," said Zuma.

In other assertions, Zuma said the state's response to his request that his case be struck off the roll had been nothing but a prolonged blast of purposely irrelevant hot air.

Said Zuma: "Protestations of indignation and outrage (have) spew(ed) from the mouths of senior officials past and present, of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the National Ministry of Justice. Yet their howls of innocence, when subjected to analysis, are shrill and hollow."

Zuma said that, overall, his right to a fair trial had been irretrievably infringed by the conduct of the state, especially in its publication in papers and elsewhere of unproven allegations, from which unproven and damaging inferences could be drawn.

Specifically, said Zuma, the state had not dealt in its affidavits with six crucial issues, which led Zuma to believe that the case should be struck off the roll. These were:

The state's inordinate delay in coming to trial;
The impact on Zuma of the investigation on him since mid-2001 and, especially since November 2002, when he first read about it "in the press";
The impact on Zuma of the media release of August 2003 by Bulelani Ngcuka, then NDPP, who said that a prima facie case existed against Zuma but that he would not be charged;
The impact on Zuma of the decision to prosecute him in June 2005;
The "purpose" of the investigation and charges (Zuma has cried "political conspiracy"); and
The impact on him of further postponements, which the state seems to be trying to be engineer.

Zuma said the NPA had not fulfilled its mandate to investigate fairly, impartially, and objectively, but had been deeply "cynical' in its approach to him. To illustrate this, he cited the following:

The "cynical" extension in October 2002 of an investigation - de facto commenced and conducted since mid-2001 - so as to ostensibly legitimise what had gone before and what was to follow;
The "cynical" abuse of power in further extending the investigation in August 2005 to include allegations of Zuma's defrauding of parliament and tax evasion;
The cynical abuse of state power in executing the search warrants of August 2005;
The apparently total reliance on the Shaik judgment, which Zuma argued was in law irrelevant to his matter.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and The Star.