Prosecution stronger as Zuma trial adjourns for September 20

After having a tough time on Wednesday afternoon, the state’s fortunes in the Jacob Zuma corruption trial improved markedly yesterday morning.

Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Herbert Msimang yesterday admitted, in an unprecedented step, that he had got “carried away” when he said on Wednesday that the state had possibly committed contempt of court.

The state ended round one of the Jacob Zuma corruption trial on a strong note with Msimang’s concession that the issue of contempt of court was “not really relevant” to the state’s application for postponement.

Msimang yesterday postponed the case to September 20, when he will announce whether the trial will be further extended or whether the case will be struck from the roll.

The judge reacted with shock on Wednesday when Advocate Nirmal Singh, SC, appearing for the arms company Thint, informed him that the state had the auditing firm KPMG documents for their forensic report, which were obtained during illegal raids. According to Singh, that was tantamount to contempt of court.

Hitting back at the defence yesterday, state advocate Billy Downer, SC, said the state were acting within the law when they used the information to compile their forensic report. The state is appealing against a ruling by the Durban High Court that the raids on the properties of Zuma and his lawyer, Michael Hulley, had been unlawful and that they must, therefore, give the documents to the defence.

When the state’s appeal was lodged, the original court order to give the papers back was suspended, pending the appeal.

Singh said that because the court ruled that the information was obtained illegally and that it should be returned to the defence, the state could not use it.

However, Msimang yesterday said: “Perhaps we got carried away [regarding the court orders and the allegations of contempt of court]”.

He said the issue was whether there is a reasonable expectation that the evidence will be available at the start of the trial and Downer responded that there is.

Downer said it would seem sensible to allow the state to use all the information it gathered. He said it would be a rather drastic remedy to strike the matter off the court roll because of unresolved applications.

Downer said the defence initially said the state had started the trial too late, and that they are now saying the state was too early. “The bottom line is that we have the evidence and we are ready to go to trial,” he said.

When it came to Zuma’s former adviser Schabir Shaik’s appeal, Downer said they are trying to do their best to ensure a speedy trial and that they could not postpone the trial until everything was completed.

Msimang asked if it was not a fact that the Shaik trial was used as a test case to see if Zuma could be charged. He added that issues that come up in Shaik’s appeal will have some bearing on this trial.

“We did consider it. It would seem to impinge on the rights of a speedy trial to wait,” responded Downer.

When asked by Msimang why they did not just use the available evidence instead of including evidence from the searches, Downer responded that they regarded it important to use all the evidence.

“We wanted to present the fullest case … we wanted to prevent two trials,” said Downer.

Zuma faces charges relating to the billion rand contracts concluded in the late 1990s by the South African Government to buy aircraft and vessels for the South African Air Force and Navy.

With acknowledgements to Sharika Regchand, Adriaan Basson, Jan-Jan Joubert and The Witness.