Publication: Sunday Independent Issued: Date: 2007-09-21 Reporter:

What Rights Are Being Infringed, asks Judge

 

Publication 

Sunday Independent

Date

2007-09-21

Web Link

www.sundayindependent.co.za

 

Jacob Zuma is convinced that he is "an eventual accused" against whom, his lawyers contend, the State could only seek evidence once he is on trial.

Twenty-four hours after he received trade union Cosatu's endorsement for the impending ANC presidency race, Zuma's legal team went to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein today to stop the State from gathering alleged evidence of corruption against him from Mauritius.

Zuma's advocate, Kemp J Kemp SC, argued that the State could no longer attempt to get the originals of 14 documents used to convict Zuma's financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, of fraud and corruption, because they were no longer information, but "evidence for trial".

The documents contain the diary of Alain Thetard, a representative of the French arms company Thint, in which a meeting between himself, Shaik and Zuma allegedly to discuss a bribe is recorded.

A visibly confused Judge Robert Nugent asked Kemp: "You are not saying that the state can only give evidence after this trial starts?"

"That is the submission," Kemp said.

Kemp also argued that because the State knew what the disputed documents contained, they should no longer be entitled to ask for them in the way in which they had.

Judge Nugent then said: "So if you don't know what's in the diary, you can ask for it. But if you do, you can't? *1"

Kemp responded: "Exactly *1. Because you are asking for evidence for trial."

Before Zuma's legal team can even appeal against a Durban High Court ruling authorising the issuing of the letter of request to Mauritius, they have to prove they have the right to do so.

Kemp this morning told the Appeal Court that should Zuma not be able to challenge the issuing of the request now, he would never be able to do so.

It was Kemp's argument that the way in which the state had sought the letter had made it virtually impossible for the documents it sought copies of which were used in Shaik's trial to be challenged during Zuma's possible fraud and corruption case.

Friday is the fifth time that Court One in the Supreme Court of Appeal has played host to an appeal linked to a R500 000 bribe Zuma allegedly received from Thint eight years ago.

Shaik failed in his appeal against his fraud and corruption sentence here last year, and Zuma, his attorneys and Thint are currently waiting for the court to rule on an appeal brought by the State and Thint on the lawfulness of the controversial Scorpions raids on their offices and homes in August 2005.

Judge Nugent repeatedly asked Kemp which of Zuma's rights were being infringed by the letter of request.

At one point, he said to Kemp: "I am not sure you are answering my question. I am not asking you what interest you have, I am asking you what rights are being infringed. I am not going to ask you again. If you don't want to answer me, you don't have to *1."

The hearing continues.

• This article was originally published on page 4 of The Cape Argus on September 21, 2007

With acknowledgements to Sunday Independent.


*1       Huh?


*2      Because this dingbat has no answer.