Publication: Cape Times Issued: Date: 2007-12-05 Reporter: Karyn Maughan

Mauritian Vault Holds Key to Whether NPA will Proceed with Zuma Case

 

Publication 

Cape Times
Date

2007-12-05
Reporter Karyn Maughan

Web Link

 www.capetimes.co.za



Presidential hopeful Jacob Zuma has not yet been criminally charged because of 14 documents stored in a vault in Mauritius *1.

And the National Prosecuting Authority is unlikely to make any public announcement about Zuma's future until it has the originals of the documents, which it used to convict Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik of fraud and corruption.

Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe said at the weekend a decision on Zuma would be made within two months because more evidence was needed to assess the case against him.

Today, the NPA, through the Mauritian Attorney-General's office, will formally request that the originals of the 14 "Shaik documents" be handed over to it - despite Zuma's latest bid to challenge the state's request for the documents in the Constitutional Court.

However, because of objections raised by French arms company Thint *2, the company formerly accused of attempting to bribe Zuma to protect it against a potentially damaging arms deal inquiry, the application now looks set to be postponed until at least January.

The documents include the 2000 diary of former Thint representative Alain Thethard (sic - Thetard), previously described by the state as "damning", in which he noted a meeting between himself, Zuma and Shaik on March 11, 2000.

It was at this meeting that an alleged bribe of R500 000 to Zuma by Thethard was discussed.

Zuma's legal team have consistently maintained that, despite Shaik's legal team accepting the state's use of copies of the Mauritian documents in his trial, they will refuse to accept these copies as evidence *3, should Zuma be charged.

They have also tried and failed to stop the issuing of the letter of request for the documents, with the Supreme Court unanimously finding that Zuma did not have the "standing" to interfere in the request process. Zuma is now seeking to appeal against that decision.

NPA spokesperson Tlali Tlali yesterday declined to comment on whether possible delays in the Mauritian application were what had motivated the two-month delay in the state's decision on Zuma.

"It is the NPA's policy not to comment on ongoing court processes or investigations," he said.

Contacted last night, Zuma's attorney, Michael Hulley, said he was "aware" of the Mauritian application, despite a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that the state did not have to notify Zuma when it made its request.

With acknowledgement to Karyn Maughan and Cape Times.
 


*1       The State does not require the originals of these documents - they are just a nice to have when Kemp J Kemp starts a squealin'.

If the originals cannot be used because they are locked ion a Mauritian vault then the NPA can use copies, as they successfully did against Schabir Shaik.


*2      Thint is only (and only can) objecting to the release of a few documents which contain financial information not related to the Corvette Combat Suite deal and which the NPA in any case do not want or require.


*3      The Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed the admissibility of these copies so how is a lower court going to refuse admissibility in identical circumstances?

In fact, how can the High Court refuse the use of copies when it is the accused themselves who wish to cause the unavailability of the originals.

There is in any case the "best evidence rule". If the originals are unavailable then the copies will become the best evidence.

Challenging the authenticity of the copies will be a hollow and futile exercise because the copies have been proven both to have been properly obtained and authentic. They all have NPA serial numbers and were signed for by both the Mauritian authorities (Inspector Jagoo) and the South African authorities (Adv W.J. Downer SC).