Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2007-04-03 Reporter: Ernest Mabuza

Zuma, Thint To Appeal Documents Ruling

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2007-04-03

Reporter

 Ernest Mabuza

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint will appeal against the Durban High Court’s decision to issue a letter of request to the Mauritian authorities requesting them to provide the prosecution with documents it wants to use as part of its investigations into Zuma and Thint.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) had hoped that the judgment would clear the way for the prosecution to finalise this part of the probe “as soon as possible”.

Zuma’s attorney, Michael Hulley, said yesterday Zuma was disappointed with the decision and felt that the judgment was wrong *1. Hulley said Zuma would lodge his appeal with Judge Phillip Levensohn next week.

Thint’s lawyer, Ajay Sooklal, also said the company would lodge an appeal next week.

The delay in the proceedings also means there is a possibility that the NPA would not be able to get documents before December, when Zuma is expected to run for the presidency of the ANC.

The NPA is relying on these documents to build a strong case against Zuma.

The documents, which were seized during the search and seizure operation in Mauritius in 2001, relate to alleged meetings between Zuma, convicted businessman Schabir Shaik and Thint. The documents include the diary of former Thint CE Alain Thetard. The diary could prove that a meeting took place in March 2000 between Thetard, Zuma and Shaik, Zuma’s former financial adviser who is serving a 15-year sentence for fraud and corruption.

The state claims it is at that meeting that a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma was discussed.

Zuma and Thint had argued that the search and seizure operations by the state in Mauritius were unlawful, improper and outside the South African court’s jurisdiction.

“At this stage there appears to be sufficient prima facie evidence that the 2001 request was properly made and the process a lawful one,” Levensohn said.

Levensohn also rejected Zuma and Thint’s assertion that legal proceedings against them were still pending and that the NPA was still bound by a March 2006 order issued by Judge Pete Combrinck that any letter of request would have to be granted by a trial judge.

Zuma and Thint had argued that because the NPA refused to withdraw its case against them, Combrinck’s order was still valid.

In September, Judge Herbert Msimang struck the case against Zuma and Thint from the roll, after the state sought a postponement pending the outcome of Shaik’s appeal against his conviction.

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.


*1       Just on what basis could this nincampoop feel the judgment to be wrong?

The Deputy Judge President has just wacked his arguments right out of the park for six sixes in an over, that's 6 - 0.

He's probably getting some great advice from the Great Umkempt who doesn't having to worry about a thing as long as the taxpayer and general public are footing the bill.