Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2007-07-28 Reporter: Tim Cohen

Unravelling the Zuma Confusion

 

Publication 

Business Day Weekender
Date 2007-07-28

Reporter

 Tim Cohen

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

"The victory has given Zuma propaganda … and he is now able to dazzle the unwary with the claim the operation was ‘bungled’"

The lead story in the Sowetan this week suggested that Jacob Zuma had won an important concession from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) prior to the Appeal Court hearing later this week in connection with the “bungled” search and seizure operations. Under the headline “case weakened” it suggested Zuma’s position had improved.

Just for the sake of clarity, allow me to try and untangle this complex but crucial web, because I think the Sowetan has got the bull a little bit by the udder.

The triple-appeal is crucial for both politics and, of course, for Zuma himself. The final result will surely be a determining factor in whether the NPA charges Zuma again. This decision has been dragging on interminably and, I must say, it does seem unfair to Zuma to have to operate under this cloud for so long.

But anyway, the wheels of justice grind on.

The Appeal Court hearing concerns three cases disputing the search and seizure operations, two of which were determined in the high court in favour of Zuma and his camp ­ if you can call it that ­ and one against.

The search was conducted on August 18 2005 in a whole range of venues, including Zuma’s homes.

As far as the homes search is concerned, the warrant was granted on August 12. But shortly after that, the Scorpions realised that Zuma had moved, so a replacement warrant was requested and granted on August 15. However, in the process of authorising the 150 or so individual members of the Scorpions to conduct the searches, the NPA official involved apparently forgot that two different dates were now involved and only authorised the officials in terms of the August 12 warrant.

This seems like a bizarrely trivial issue, but on such tiny issues court cases often hinge. But, as it happens, not this one.

The NPA long ago conceded that this particular search at Zuma’s new home in Forest Town was technically flawed and returned everything they took ­ which apparently wasn’t much. However, the victory has given Zuma propaganda in his political campaign and he is now able to dazzle the unwary with the claim that the operation was “bungled”. But, in fact, the arguments between the sides have not changed and no additional concessions have been made.

Much more tricky for the NPA is the argument they lost in the high court about documents vested with Zuma’s then-lawyer Julekha Mahomed. In principle, it seems very unjust for any legal institution to be allowed to breach lawyer-client privilege by seizing documents from a lawyer’s office.

The NPA’s argument is that the documents were in a sealed box sent to Mahomed by Shabir Shaik after Shaik was convicted. They weren’t part of any lawyer-client relationship and Zuma’s lawyers did not know what was in the box.

But from Judge Ismail Hussain’s judgment in the high court hearing, the lawyer-client relationship was apparently not the main problem. Hussain appeared to be more worried about the scope of the search and whether the Scorpions had been entirely straight when they approached Gauteng Judge President Bernard Ngoepe to sign the warrants.

For example, Mahomed was described by the Scorpions as Zuma’s “personal legal assistant” rather than as a practising attorney. The NPA argues effectively that this is simply hair-splitting.

The Zuma camp has problems of its own in its appeal of the Pretoria High Court’s decision to uphold the search of the local offices of arms company Thales ­ but these are not new either.

It remains to be seen how all this will pan out, but it’s important to be specific about what has been decided ­ and what not.

Likewise, once this issue is clarified, it’s to be hoped that the NPA will make a quick decision on whether to charge or not *1.

With acknowledgements to Tim Cohen and Business Day.


*1       'Tis *2 the main thing.


*2      After all.