Publication: Sunday Independent Issued: Date: 2007-03-18 Reporter: Jeremy Gordin

Thint, Zuma Go on the Attack over Crucial Mauritian Documents

 

Publication 

Sunday Independent

Date

2007-03-18

Reporter

 Jeremy Gordin

Web Link

www.sundayindependent.co.za

 

Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thint have got Billy Downer SC in their sights and have asked that he be ordered to appear in the Pietermaritzburg high court for cross-examination on Thursday.

Downer, a prosecutor at the national directorate of public prosecutions (NPA), was the lead prosecutor for the state in the successful high and appeal court matters against convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik and in the failed high court matter against Zuma and Thint.

He is now appearing for the state in its attempt to obtain documents relating to an alleged meeting between Alain Thetard, the former Thint chief executive in South Africa, Zuma and Shaik.

Zuma and Thint have opposed the attempt to obtain the documents and have filed papers over the past few weeks, as has the state. The matter has been set down for argument in the Pietermaritzburg high court on Thursday and Friday.

On Friday, Pierre Moynot, the chief executive of Thint, said in an affidavit that new information that had come to his attention related to the way in which the state had sought mutual legal assistance from the Mauritian authorities during September and October 2001.

Moynot said that it was apparent that the methods used by the state - as disclosed in recent affidavits to the court - had apparently been "glaringly irregular".

Moynot said that certain occurrences had also not been disclosed during earlier court proceedings.

"These [proceedings] include the application brought in Mauritius [and] the application by the state for a postponement and the application by [Zuma and Thint] for a permanent stay of the prosecution heard by [Judge] Msimang, the Shaik trial, and the application by Shaik and others pending before the constitutional court for leave to appeal," said Moynot.

For all these reasons - the alleged irregularity of Downer's behaviour, as well as the alleged "missing" information - Moynot requested that Downer be ordered to "appear at the hearing for the purposes of cross-examination".

Thint's lawyers also applied that the state be directed to make "discovery" - that is, reveal - all documents in its possession relating to its application for mutual legal assistance from Mauritius in 2001.

In his affidavit, Moynot has argued that the application submitted by Bulelani Ngcuka, the former national director of public prosecutions, in September 2001, via the director-general of foreign affairs of South Africa, was not properly processed and forwarded to Mauritius.

Moynot has also argued that Downer, in procuring certain documents at the same time, did not follow the correct legal channels via the high commissioner of South Africa in Mauritius.

Both Zuma and Thint have contended that the state has not approached the court with clean hands in this matter. They have claimed that the state's conduct has been unconstitutional.

In papers before court, both Zuma and Thint state that search-and-seizure raids carried out in Mauritius were unlawful.

Zuma's lawyers have argued that the appropriate remedy would be for the supreme court to dismiss the application.

They have said that the state should "purge its dirty hands by returning all the copies of the documents to the Mauritian authorities" *1.

Zuma's and Thint's lawyers have claimed that, in 2001, a Mauritius supreme court order did not authorise copies of the seized documents to be given to the South African authorities and that it was improper for a South African court to adjudicate on the release of these documents.

Zuma's legal team argued that the state was seeking to gain an upper hand by attempting to rectify the supposed flaws in its initial investigation against the former deputy president and Thint.

They insist that by wanting to obtain the originals of the documents, the state seeks to maintain and expand its ill-gotten advantages in this application.

Meanwhile, in its heads of argument filed last week, the NPA remained adamant that Zuma and Thint were using every trick to stop it from obtaining evidence for a possible trial *1.

The NPA said it felt there were reasonable grounds to believe that an act of corruption had been committed *2.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and Sunday Independent.


*1      The crux of the biscuit is that Zuma and Thint are indeed using every trick to stop the NPA from obtaining evidence for a possible trial against them.

First they wanted to preclude the originals from being obtained from Mauritius, now they fear the copies lawfully obtained from Mauritius. The South African High Court has already ruled that obtaining these copies was lawful.



*2      If they were innocent of corruption, they would not fear Page 85 00054 dated Friday, 10 March 2000 and Page 85 0055 dated Saturday, 11 March 2000, as well as the Service Provider Agreement between Thomson-CSF and Nkobi Holdings (the one nicely annotated "conflicts with intention".


Anyway, as a welcome change from the sterile atmosphere of motion proceedings on affidavit, it'll be interesting to a senior counsel of the realm cross-examining another senior counsel of the realm - i'ts (from) :