Publication: Cape Argus
Issued:
Date: 2008-01-02
Reporter: Sapa
Reporter: Murray Williams
| Publication |
Cape Argus
|
| Date |
2008-01-02
|
|
Reporter |
Murray Williams,
Sapa |
|
Web Link
|
www.capeargus.co.za
|
The National Prosecuting Authority says it is obliged
by the constitution to charge Jacob Zuma in the
light of evidence obtained before and after the trial of his former
financial adviser, Schabir Shaik.
And ID leader Patricia de Lille the first person to blow the whistle on arms
deal irregularities tops the State's 218-strong list of witnesses, as she did in
the Shaik trial.
She said today: "Zuma's always asked to have his day in court and he has his
opportunity now. At the end of the day an independent judge will determine
whether he is guilty or not, or whether the NPA has acted improperly."
The NPA defended its action in a statement released yesterday in response to the
barrage of insults and accusations after it brought
renewed charges against the ANC president on Friday.
"The NPA is sensitive to the controversy which this decision (to prosecute Zuma)
evokes," NPA spokesman Tlali Tlali said.
"This decision was further reinforced by the various rulings in the High Courts,
the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court in South Africa,
relating to the same subject matter.
"Our only allegiance is to the constitution of the country, which compels us to
prosecute serious matters such as the present one, without
fear, favour or prejudice *1. We are obliged to carry out this mandate,
however unpopular it might be."
The charges have enraged Zuma's backers especially within Cosatu, the SACP and
the ANC Youth League and his court date at the Pietermaritzburg High Court on
August 4 is set to be discussed at the Zuma-leaning NEC of the ANC on Monday,
where anti-Thabo Mbeki sentiment is set to boil over.
Zuma faces 16 charges: one of racketeering, two of corruption, a count of money
laundering and 12 of fraud all of which his supporters dismiss as the result of
a political conspiracy.
But Tlali said: "We are ... aware of claims that the NPA is being misused to
advance the political and other objectives of certain individuals. This is not
so. The decision has been made by the NPA and the NPA alone."
He said the NPA had decided to issue the statement "to explain the true facts
and place matters in the proper context".
The two South African subsidiaries of Thales International (formerly Thomson-CFS)
Thint Holding (Southern Africa) Pty Ltd and Thint (Pty) Ltd will stand trial
with Zuma. Each faces a charge of racketeering and two of corruption.
Tlali said the charges had been laid only "after careful consideration of the
facts and evidence".
Evidence obtained prior to the Shaik trial, as well as evidence that had emerged
at the time, had contributed to the decision to prosecute.
"The charge sheet speaks for itself and it would be imprudent to make
pronouncements about a case in which criminal proceedings are effectively under
way."
Tlali urged politicians and other public figures to allow the law to take its
course and not to incite disrespect for the law.
"The eyes of the country and the world will be on us. It is incumbent upon us
all to demonstrate that we live in a mature democracy, whose citizens and the
institutions respect the law and those who enforce it."
Attached to the Zuma indictment, filed in the Pietermaritzburg High Court, was a
spreadsheet detailing 783 payments totalling more than R4 million allegedly made
by Shaik and his companies between October 25, 1995, and July 1, 2005.
The payments range from R25 allegedly for a "mini car valet" to R400 000,
allegedly for the "development of (Zuma's) traditional residential village
estate in Nkandla".
The spreadsheet, prepared by auditors KPMG, labels the payments "Zuma wife",
each carrying the initials of the two women N C (Nkosazana) Dlamini-Zuma and K M
(Kate) Zuma.
With acknowledgements to Sapa, Murray Williams and Cape Argus.
*1 At last the NPA is doing its duty.
In 2003 the then head of the NPA failed to do his duty when he declined to
prefer charges against Zuma.
In 2005 the head of the NPA again failed is his duty when he withdrew charges
against the most serious of all the co-conspirators, Thomson-CSF, on the
flimsiest of reasons ever seen in the jurisprudential history of South Africa.
If it were not for these failings, this country would not now be going into one
of the riskiest periods of its history - ever.
Unfortunately South Africa is very far from a mature democracy and indeed is
close to a political power keg.
We see what has happened in Zimbabwe and now Kenya to know how close we live to
the edge.
This is not hindsight having 20/20 vision - there is just no credible and valid
reasons why all three co-conspirators were no charge simultaneously.