In a judgment that is likely to hasten the National Prosecution Authority’s (NPA’s) plans to pursue charges against African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Jacob Zuma, Durban High Court Judge Jan Hugo yesterday granted the state’s application to execute a letter of request to Mauritian authorities.

The snag is that Zuma and French arms company Thint have appealed against Judge Philip Levensohn’s letter of authorisation, and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) will hear the case on September 21. Hugo ruled that should the NPA retrieve the documents from Mauritius, these should be kept under lock and key, either at the registrar of the high court or by the South African high commissioner to Mauritius.

The documents the state seeks include the 2000 diary of former French arms official Alain Thetard, in which an alleged entry indicates that Thetard had a meeting with Zuma and convicted fraud Schabir Shaik in Mauritius in 2000, where a bribe of R500 000 for Zuma was allegedly discussed. The state said the information from the documents would be crucial to an investigation *1 of Zuma and Thint.

The imminent recharging of Zuma is likely to cloud the ANC presidential succession issue and comes at a time when the party is preparing for its national conference in December that will choose its leader. However, Zuma has said he would accept nomination regardless *2 of whether he was recharged with corruption by the NPA.

There have been bitter legal arguments between Zuma and the NPA, with the NPA accusing Zuma and Thint of not seeking a genuine resolution to the matter because of their appeals.

Counsel for Zuma and Thint countered that the granting of the execution order would result in legal action in Mauritius, which “would be all for nothing” if Thint and Zuma won their appeal.

Both the NPA and Zuma welcomed yesterday’s court decision, with the NPA saying the decision brought it to where it was when Judge Herbert Msimang struck the case off the roll in September. Zuma’s attorney, Michael Hulley, said he was glad Hugo had asked that the documents be kept under lock and key until the matter was finalised in the SCA.

Hulley reiterated Zuma’s assertions that charges against him were a plot to prevent him from becoming president. “It has always been Mr Zuma’s position that these cases are matter of political interference.”

Political analyst Nic Borain said the new case would further cloud the succession issue and came at an especially sensitive time in the lead-up to the ANC’s December meeting.

“It’s really a catch-22 situation. If they don’t convict Zuma or the case is dropped, it will reinforce the perception among his supporters that he is a victim of political interference,” he said. “The wheels of justice are rolling and I think this case may not be based on politics, but it comes as the ANC meeting approaches so it could still raise suspicions *3. Either way it’ll be difficult.”

In the September appeal, Zuma and Thint are expected to argue that the seizure operations by the state in Mauritius in 2001 were unlawful, improper and outside the South African court’s jurisdiction.

Zuma was charged in 2005 with corruption, after the fraud conviction of Shaik. However, the state sought a postponement last year, 15 months after charging him.

The state argued that it was still investigating and said it was becoming difficult to finalise investigations as it was awaiting the finalisation of appeals against two high court judgments. The appeals would be heard in the SCA in August.

The state presented the court with a timetable that would have seen it finalising and presenting indictments against Zuma and Thint by October 15 last year. In declining the state’s request for a postponement, Msimang said it was important that the state’s efforts to prosecute in this matter would flounder. When a decision to prosecute the two was made, those efforts were based on an unsound foundation.

Msimang said the prejudice that Zuma suffered by being charged resembled the punishment that ought only to be imposed on convicted people and was unfavourable to the right to be presumed innocent enshrined in the constitution.

When the prosecution indicated to Msimang that it could not continue with the case, he struck the case off the roll.

See also :

• State victory on Zuma diary may prove illusory
• Special Report: The State vs. Jacob Zuma

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.