Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2006-09-05 Reporter: Ernest Mabuza

Judge to Decide Whether Zuma, Thint Trial Stands

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2006-09-05

Reporter

 Ernest Mabuza

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

Judge Herbert Msimang has been presented with a number of options to help him decide whether or not the corruption trial of former deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thint will continue in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

The prosecution indicated last month it would be unable to begin with the trial and asked for a postponement until the first court term next year.

Zuma and Thint have both opposed the application for postponement. Instead, they have asked the court for a permanent stay of prosecution, meaning that they would no longer be charged.

If that fails, Zuma and Thint have asked that the case be struck off the roll.

They have also asked that the state should not be allowed to charge them again unless they have been provided with a final indictment and the state has finalised all its investigations.

Msimang will have to weigh Zuma’s claim that the state was responsible for his facing charges which could not proceed to trial immediately, and that the delay was inexcusable.

Zuma, whose case will be argued by Kemp J Kemp, would also argue that none of the factors on which the state relied for the adjournment provided a proper reason for a further adjournment.

Thint, whose case will be argued by Kessie Naidu, will argue that the state could have achieved finality in this matter when it charged Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, in 2003. However, it had struck a deal with Thint and had now changed its mind ­ a decision that had affected the credibility of its business.

The state, whose heads of argument were presented by Wim Trengove, will argue that the accused have failed to make out any case that they would suffer trial-related prejudice if the matter was to be postponed.

The state will also argue that no case has been made out for a permanent stay of prosecution and that the accused had also failed to establish that it would be appropriate for the court to strike the matter from the roll.

The state will argue that the case has not been unduly delayed as it was presented before the court only last year.

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.