Publication: The Citizen
Issued:
Date: 2009-01-12
Reporter: Paul Kirk
| Publication |
The Citizen
|
| Date |
2009-01-27
|
|
Reporter |
Paul Kirk |
|
Web Link |
www.citizen.co.za |
Johannesburg - Jacob Zuma’s legal team had not made any
representations to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) by yesterday –
despite having incurred millions in legal
fees demanding the right to make a submission to prosecutors seeking to charge
him with corruption *1.
Zuma’s legal team hope these representations will allow the ANC president to
dodge standing trial charged with corruption, fraud, racketeering and tax
evasion related to South Africa’s R60 billion arms deal.
Yesterday Michael Hulley, Zuma’s lawyer, told The Citizen that he was not
in a position to make any comment saying he was “still talking to the NPA” about
his client’s representations and could not discuss the matter.
Asked whether these representations would be public, Hulley said: “I would be
shocked if these discussions were not confidential.”
Hulley denied the discussions were
tantamount to a secret trial where Zuma could
dodge charges that have
already jailed his financial adviser Schabir Shaik.
Based on these representations the National Director of Public Prosecutions can
either decide to continue with Zuma’s prosecution, or alternatively he can use
Zuma as a State witness against others.
Zuma has long hinted that he has dirt on other senior politicians who took
bribes.
If Zuma is used as a State witness he can be granted immunity at the end of a
trial in which he gives satisfactory evidence against others. This immunity,
granted under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedures Act, can only be awarded by
the presiding judge at the end of a criminal trial.
To qualify for this immunity Zuma would
have to admit his involvement in criminal activity.
However it is understood that Zuma’s lawyers will be seeking to convince the NPA
to neither charge Zuma, nor use him as a State witness. The final decision rests
with the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
Hulley also confirmed that the Zuma trial would not be proceeding any time soon
after February 4 when Zuma’s legal team meet with Judge Leona Theron and the NPA
in the Pietermaritzburg High Court to discuss dates.
With acknowledgements
to Paul Kirk and The Citizen.
*1 It is totally
ironic, yet expected and unacceptable.
The major "defence" thus far has been to try to get the charges declared
unlawful because representations were not offered as a right, although they were
certainly always offered as a favour.
So when the offer to hear representations is re-made and a date agreed, they are
simply not done without notification.
This is pure bad manners as well as wrong in every other respect.
The offer to hear representations should now be formally withdrawn and the
matter proceed to court and to trial with the greatest of haste.
The NPA is on record as saying that it is ready for trial. Zuma is on record as
saying it is the NPA that is delaying his justice.
Put them to the test and start the trial on April Fool's Day, Wednesday 1 April
2009.
We've paid our taxes, we made our contributions to both The State's and Zuma's
legal costs. We now demand what that pays for, a fait trial in the extremely
near future.