|
'In Reality' I Face No Criminal Charges: Zuma |
| Publication |
Cape Times |
| Date | 2008-07-29 |
| Reporter | Staff Writer |
|
Web Link |
ANC President Jacob Zuma says that "in reality" he is facing no criminal
charges and he is only going to court next week "out of respect for the legal
process".
His stance is rooted in his insistence that the prosecution of him on
corruption, fraud and money-laundering charges is unlawful - and that the 2003
decision not to charge him, as publicly announced by then public prosecutions
director Bulelani Ngcuka, still stands.
This is the essence of the argument that will be put before Judge Chris
Nicholson in the Pietermaritzburg High Court next Monday as Zuma attempts to get
his case struck from the roll or the charges withdrawn.
Both Zuma and the state have already filed voluminous papers in the application.
On Monday, Zuma's legal team submitted its final "heads of argument" and the
state is expected to do the same tomorrow.
At the heart of Zuma's argument is the constitution which, he says, dictates
that the public prosecutions director may review a decision to prosecute or not
only after hearing representations from the accused, the complainant and any
other relevant person.
Simply put, Zuma says, one of the reasons for this is to prevent politically
motivated prosecutions from the public prosecutions director, who is a direct
appointee of the president. He claims to have become a victim of a politically
motivated prosecution when (now suspended) public prosecutions director Vusi
Pikoli decided to prosecute him in June 2005 and then again, after his case was
struck from the roll by Judge Herbert Msimang, a further decision was taken by
acting public prosecutions director Mokotedi Mpshe to re-institute charges last
December.
"The present prosecution clearly required the NDPP to call for representations
before deciding to institute it," Zuma's legal team argues, citing "political
aspects".
"The Pikoli decision took place against the backdrop of an implied presidential
instruction. The Mpshe decision took place against the same backdrop," his
lawyers argue, mentioning the Polokwane ANC elections, "which featured a bitter
battle" between Thabo Mbeki and Zuma. A call for representations would at least
in some measure have promoted the freedom from political influence required,
they say.
It is argued that the existence of a political motive is germane to the issue.
"It is the very existence of factors like the president dismissing Zuma (as
deputy president of SA) and referring to him having his day in court and then
the decision reversing the 2003 decision following in days. The mere fact that
Pikoli's decision was made under such circumstances is highly relevant, for
prosecutorial conduct must instill confidence... it must be seen to be proper
and fair, be reliable and free from political influence."
Beyond constitutional requirements, Zuma had specifically requested an
opportunity to make representations prior to any review of the 2003 decision not
to prosecute him, and this had been deliberately ignored.
Zuma's lawyers argue that Ngcuka's 2003 decision was
"carefully considered" *1 and backed up by the
opinion of senior counsel *2.
"The public announcement left no doubt that it had been carefully considered
at the highest level *3 and after an intensive and
painstaking two-year investigation that left no stone unturned... the
announcement was pronounced as a final decision.
We say this decision not to prosecute has not been
reversed *4 (because the constitutional pre-requisites have not been met)
and still stands as an obstacle to the present charges until it is," they argue.
* This article was originally published on page 3 of
The Mercury
on July 29, 2008
With acknowledgements to Cape Times.