Publication: The Natal Witness Issued: Date: 2006-07-31 Reporter: Adriaan Basson Reporter:

Permanent Stay of the Trial 'Unlikely'

 

Publication 

The Natal Witness
Date 2006-07-31

Reporter

 Adriaan Basson

Web Link

www.witness.co.za

 

Chances are slim that corruption charges against Jacob Zuma will be permanently stayed this week.

This is the view of Professor Marinus Wiechers, former Unisa law professor and regular commentator about the Zuma case.

Zuma appears in the high court today on two charges of corruption along with Thint, the South African affiliate of the French arms giant Thales.

Speculation yesterday was the legal teams of both Zuma and Thint would oppose any further postponement today with an application that the charges against their clients be withdrawn permanently.

Wiechers said, though, the only thing the defence could really ask was the case not be postponed any longer and to start immediately.

Wiechers said: “The state obviously has to present a solid case, because the hearing has been postponed for quite a while. Personally I think the strongest point for a postponement is the other pending applications [against the controversial Zuma raids last year].

“This will establish the extent of the evidence against Zuma. I think there’s reasonable grounds for an application. Also remember the state didn’t table the applications [against the raids], but Zuma did.”

Independent group Sunday papers reported the legal teams of Zuma and Thint hadn’t tabled their replies to the state’s application for a postponement by Friday, because they didn’t have finality about a strategy for today.

Apparently “volumes” of documents would be filed this morning in support of an application to get rid permanently of the corruption tag from both Zuma and Thint. Wiechers said it could be expected the defence would argue that Zuma was the victim of a delayed justice process and “justice delayed is justice denied”.

“However, I don’t think this will work given the extent of this case and in view of the Shaik ruling. The extent of the evidence has already been established.”

Judge Hilary Squires ruled in June last year that Zuma and Schabir Shaik, his former financial adviser, had a “generally corrupt relationship,” with Shaik financing Zuma’s lifestyle and Zuma using his political position to advance Shaik’s private affairs.

He also found Shaik guilty of facilitating bribes from Thales for Zuma.

Wiechers said the judge could give a “definite postponement” today.

“He could tell the state to get a move on.

“The case has strong political implications and the judge will be very strict about allowing further postponement,” said Wiechers.

The Shaik appeal, to be heard in Bloemfontein from August 21 to 25, could, according to Wiechers, play a role, but not in legal argument.

“There’s a very strong principle that one person’s contravention doesn’t immediately implicate the other.*1

“The Shaik case has been concluded and doesn’t really have an impact on the Zuma case.”

With ackowledgement to Adriaan Basson and The Natal Witness.


*1       Either something got lost in the translation from the Afrikaans original in the Media 24 press to the English translation in The Witness, or the retired professor has lost his legal marbles.

It might be true that :
“One person’s conviction doesn’t immediately convict the other".
But at the same time where there is a binary crime such as bribery or corruption, there has to be very strong logic, indeed inescapable logic, that :
"One person’s proven contravention of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1992 immediately implicates the other party or parties involved in the same act of bribery or corruption".