Presidential front-runner Jacob Zuma has made his last legal stand against
possible prosecution for fraud and corruption - 17 days before the battle for
leadership of the African National Congress is decided.
But, in contrast to his last five court battles
with the National Prosecuting Authority, Zuma and his legal team have
shied away from accusing the state of "engineering"
its case against him so that the ANC deputy president would appear as a
"criminal accused" at the ANC's leadership conference in Polokwane.
Instead, Zuma's lawyers have come out blazing against the Supreme Court of
Appeal ruling that the warrants used to search his homes and offices were valid
- a decision that effectively allows the state to use a massive forensic audit,
compiled from the seized documents, as evidence against him.
The state's audit of Zuma's financial affairs, compiled from the 93 000 seized
documents, forms the basis of additional charges of money-laundering and tax
evasion that Zuma will face if he is recharged.
It is also understood to show that Zuma received R3,5-million in payments from
his former financial adviser and convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik, after Shaik
was charged with corrupting him.
Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley on Wednesday questioned why the three Appeal Court
judges who ruled that the warrants were valid had "cursorily dismissed"
arguments that they were vague and over broad "without any reasons as such".
National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson Tlali Tlali on Wednesday declined to
comment on the Zuma team's attack on the Appeal Court ruling, which the state
previously hailed as a "vindication" of the manner in which it investigated Zuma.
He has also declined to issue any comment about if and when Zuma would be
charged.
But behind the scenes the Zuma camp is furiously stoking
speculation that the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) would
recharge the ANC deputy president as soon as he returned
from a series of international visits - a claim that Hulley says he has
no knowledge of.
In papers filed in the Constitutional Court on Wednesday, Hulley argued that
there was no dispute that the controversial August 2005 warrants used to search
his and Zuma's homes and offices - and previously found to be unlawful by Durban
High Court Judge Noel Hurt - "are not and cannot be intelligible" and were
"riddled with imprecision and vagueness".
"If there is any doubt in the minds of the court, it can be readily resolved by
a question - does a found R300 restaurant bill from Steaks Galore dated 14
February 1991 fall within or without the parameters of the warrant? One simply
does not know from the warrant. Indeed it was abundantly clear in this case that
the searchers and the searched had no inkling as to what could and should be
searched for and what could be seized,"Hulley stated.
In a second challenge to the lawfulness of the warrants, Hulley argued that they
were invalid because, by allowing the state to search his offices, they violated
attorney/client privilege.
Claiming that Zuma's constitutional rights to a "fair trial" have been violated,
Zuma's legal team is also challenging the Appeal Court's unanimous ruling that
the NPA could request the originals of 14 documents - used to convict Shaik -
from Mauritian authorities.
These documents include the diary of Alain Thetard - the then-southern African
chief executive of French arms company Thomson-CSF - who allegedly met with Zuma
and Shaik to discuss a R500 000 bribe for Zuma.
During Shaik's trial the state proved that Shaik had solicited the bribe for
Zuma, in exchange for the then deputy president's protection of Thint in the
arms deal investigations. Hulley contends that allowing such a request to be
made would amount to an infringement of Zuma's rights to dignity and a fair
trial.
* This article was originally published on page 1 of
The Cape Times
on November 29, 2007
While it is hard to understand how the DSO could have
made things difficult for themselves and for The State on behalf of the The
People by formulating less than perfect search warrants, these dingbats
supporting Zuma seem to forget that there is a wealth of court-proven damning
evidence completely sufficient to convict him and Thomson-CSF on two charges of
corruption without having to reply on the evidence from the challenged search
warrants.
Then of course there is the fraud charge relating to the "revolving loan
agreement" which was found by the High Court to be bogus.
Then of course there is the money-laundering charge relating to the "service
provider agreement" which was found by the High Court to be bogus.
So there are at least four charges which can be proven with prima facie and
court-tested evidence in existence prior to the searches and seizures.
Just what is stopping the -re-institution of charges.
By while everybody seems to be discarding Thabo Mbeki for the newly anointed
one, I might as well re-affirm on the record what I've been saying for more than
fours years, Zuma should give evidence against the major habitual criminals in
this matter, i.e. Thomson-CSF, in exchange for indemnity against prosecution.
His alleged crimes are minor relative to those of Thomson-CSF.
There are also others among us whose Arms Deal crimes are massive by comparison.
I said this in my first (and only) visit to the Victoria and Griffiths Mxenge
Building in Silverton, Pretoria, I've repeated this often since then and
repeated it now prior to Polokwane 2007.
Maybe if there is no -re-instatement of charges, or a not-guilty verdict
following a failed prosecution, I might still be in line for an Order of the
Star of South Africa or by that time more likely a Grand Knight of the Order of
the Cape of Good Hope.