Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2007-04-03 Reporter: Karyn Maughan Reporter: Tania Broughton

Zuma to Fight Legal Setback

 

Publication 

The Star
Date

2007-04-03

Reporter

 Karyn Maughan, Tania Broughton

Web Link

www.thestar.co.za

 

Lawyers say they will appeal 'wrong ruling'

Jacob Zuma has been dealt a blow in his efforts to avoid prosecution for corruption - but his legal team say the former deputy president will fight back.

And they insist that the ANC deputy president's continued legal challenges to the state's probe into his financial affairs were not delaying tactics.

Speaking yesterday after the ruling by Durban High Court Judge Philip Levinsohn, which enables the state to access documents held by court injunction by Mauritian authorities, Zuma's attorney, Michael Hulley, told The Star: "With the greatest respect, this judgment is clearly wrong." *1

The 13 documents, which include a 2000 diary entry by Thint chief executive Alain Thetard indicating a meeting between himself, Zuma and Schabir Shaik, are vital to the state's continued investigation into corruption and money-laundering allegations against the politician and the French arms company.

But, it seems, the state will not be able to celebrate its victory just yet.

Hulley confirmed that he had met with a "disappointed" Zuma, who had instructed him to seek the right to challenge the decision. This application would be made within the next 15 days, as required by court rules.

Responding to suggestions that such an appeal was aimed solely at delaying Zuma's as-yet unconfirmed prosecution, Hulley was adamant that Zuma's legal team were "trying to enforce someone's constitutional rights … this is not a race against time".

Judge Levinsohn's ruling was another setback to Zuma's efforts to avoid prosecution. Last week, the Pretoria High Court granted the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) the right to request information from banks and lawyers in Britain.

According to court papers, the Scorpions believe this will lead them to discover how alleged corrupt payments between Thint and Zuma were made.

Zuma's lawyers were not informed about the application, which Hulley described as being pursued in a "bizarre" manner. Yesterday, Hulley received a copy of the state's application papers from Scorpions prosecutor Anton Steynberg. This application would also be the subject of a legal challenge, Hulley added.

He drew attention to the fact that while the state did not have to give Zuma notice of such applications, it was a "courtesy" that had been done in the Mauritian document application.

Both Zuma and Thint's lawyers battled the state's request for access to the Mauritian documents, raising several technical legal issues *2 as grounds for their opposition.

But Judge Levinsohn ruled against them on every point. He gave short shrift to the argument that the state "did not have clean hands", in that it had unlawfully made copies of the documents after they had been seized from Thint's offices in Mauritius in 2001.

He said this was a "clear innuendo of improper conduct", but pointed out that Judge Hilary Squires, in the trial of convicted fraudster Shaik, had been satisfied that there had been no impropriety.

Regarding allegations by Thint that a 2001 request for assistance, which prompted the raids on the office, was legally flawed, the judge said this matter should be aired before the high court in Mauritius. He said the attack on the search and seizure had "come very belatedly" and "at this stage there appears to be sufficient prima facie evidence that the request was property made and the process was a lawful one".

NPA spokesperson Panyaza Lesufi yesterday again refused to be drawn on whether and when Zuma and Thint would be recharged.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan, Tania Broughton and The Star.


*1       If there was any respect, then the challenge would come in the form of an appeal for appeal, not by verbal diarrhoea on the steps of the High Court.

Anyway, when Zuma/Thint (both the former and the latter as sponsored by The Peoples' taxes) spend another R300 000 and six months going to Bloemfontein, the Supreme Court of Appeal will have the final say *3 whether the High Court's judgment is correct or not.


*2      That's the crux of this biscuit: misconceived technical, legal grounds emphatically rejected by the High Court as being without merit - not solid legal points protecting either the rights of the individual or of The People.


*3      Maybe this won't be the final say if the applicants (in the SCA) lose and then use another R300 000 and another six months to go to Braamfontein to challenge the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act (ICCM Act).


Will this matter ever end?

Can one imagine how thick and fast the legal disputes and challenges will come when it gets closer to court set down and during court proceedings?

Possibly, this matter could endure for another 5 years, that's before the initial High Court verdict and then another 3 years in the SCA and CC.

The Deputy Minister of Justice Johnny de Lange MP is presently trying to put through a bill in Parliament which will increase access to justice for the ordinary person.

But the Deputy President of the ANC and his French benefactor Thomson-CSF are no ordinary persons, natural or juristic. They get sponsored tens of millions of Rands of taxpayers' money through presidential contributions or crooked Arms Deal contracts to fight every single step of the way to prison (for Zuma) and blacklisting (for Thomson-CSF).

With all respect to the GIs and Marines in the Pacific theatre of operations in the spring and summer of 1945, this one looks like it's going to be a similarly long haul. It's time for the Truman option (metaphorically and lawfully, of course).