Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2007-06-05 Reporter: Staff Reporter

Zuma Loses Battle Over Diary

 

Publication 

The Star
Date

2007-06-05

Reporter

Staff Reporter

Web Link

www.thestar.co.za

 

But judge seals and locks up papers

The National Prosecuting Authority has won the latest round in its battle against Jacob Zuma.

Durban High Court Judge Jan Hugo today granted the NPA permission to proceed with its request to Mauritian authorities for documents needed for its investigation into the ANC deputy president and French Arms company Thint.

However, the judge placed conditions on the decision.

Earlier this year, Durban High Court Judge Philip Levinsohn authorised a request to the Mauritian attorney-general for the release of 14 documents, one of which is a diary entry by former Thint representative Alain Thetard, which purportedly itemises a meeting between himself, Zuma and convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik, during which an alleged bribe for Zuma was discussed.

Thint and Zuma are taking that matter to the Supreme Court of Appeals, but the NPA has asked for the legal process to continue in Mauritius while it is being decided.

Hugo ruled that if the papers are handed to SA authorities before the conclusion of the appeal, they are to be kept "under lock and key".

If the appeal is successful then the documents will be given back to the Mauritian authorities. If not, they will be handed to the NPA.

Judge Hugo said it was "in the interests of justice" that a speedy start be made for the procedures required to acquire the documents.

He said he was unconvinced that potential damage to Zuma's reputation was reason enough to refuse the order, and said since a letter of request had already been handed to Mauritius, which had been asked to keep it on hold, "any potential damage to Zuma's reputation has already ensued".

With acknowledgement The Star.


*1      Whatever reputation there might have been evaporated *2 with the findings of the High Court in Durban on 31 May 2005 and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals on 6 November 2006.


*2      Not that the FJZ seemed to notice or care.