Publication: Cape Times
Issued:
Date: 2009-01-09
Reporter:
Jacob Zuma is ready to
negotiate with his prosecutors if the Supreme Court of
Appeal finds the corruption case against him must stand.
Backed by the ruling party, the ANC president's lawyers have
already spent months in talks
with the National Prosecuting Authority in anticipation of his possible defeat
in the appeal court on Monday.
But while the ANC has confirmed that Zuma will "make representations" to the NPA
if the appeal court rules against him, three independent sources have told The
Star that was highly unlikely to delay his
prosecutors from getting him back in the dock as soon as possible".
Five appeal court judges will rule on Monday whether Zuma's prosecution was
rightly set aside because the state failed to seek his representations before
charging and recharging him in 2005 and 2007 respectively.
ANC spokesperson Carl Niehaus confirmed that if the appeal court decides that
Zuma's prosecution was valid, the response by Zuma's legal team would include
making representations to the NPA about the reinstated corruption and
racketeering charges against him.
"It is the logical thing to do," Niehaus said, adding that the ANC supported
this out-of-court process.
"(The case against Zuma) has had a major impact on our preparations for this
year's elections … and we have a right to field our candidate for the Presidency
… without major disruption)," he said.
The Star has further established that advocate Nazeer Cassim, who is acting for
Zuma, last year started negotiating with high-ranking NPA officials, including
Asset Forfeiture Unit head Willie Hofmeyr, over Zuma's representations.
Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, was unavailable for comment on the nature of
these negotiations.
Further, no one on Zuma's legal team was prepared to comment on whether, in the
event of the state winning in the appeal court, Zuma would proceed with his
mooted application for a permanent stay of
prosecution.
Niehaus stressed that the ANC was prepared to apply for a permanent stay of
Zuma's prosecution if required to do so. "It's
an option we hold in abeyance," he said.
Meanwhile, the NPA has been cautious
in commenting on the future progress of the case against Zuma, should it be
ruled valid.
Asked what the NPA expected Zuma's next legal move to be if he loses in the
appeal court, spokesperson Tlali Tlali said there were a number of options
available.
Questioned about the NPA's attitude to considering Zuma's stance on the
allegations against him, Tlali stressed that the state had always been prepared
to "consider any representations made to us by Mr Zuma".
"We have never sought to frustrate Mr Zuma's efforts to make representations.
What we have challenged in the appeal court is Judge Chris Nicholson's ruling
that we are legally obliged to invite representations … which has
major operational implications
for us," he added.
Monday's appeal court decision is expected to be a muted affair. Neither Zuma
nor his legal team will be attending Monday's ruling, and no protests have been
planned, the ANC confirmed.
- This article was originally published on page 1 of
The Star
on January 09, 2009
Related Articles
With acknowledgements
to Cape Times.
Making representations is one thing, making a deal is another entirely.
It is too late now for Zuma to make a deal with the NPA to avoid being
re-charged with the serious crimes with which he was originally charged.
A fellow conspirator lies (literally) in the penitentiary found guilty on
essentially the same charges.
An internationally criminal juristic person awaits a similar (unfortunately not
identical) fate on almost exactly the same charges founded by a plethora of
court quality proven to be admissible evidence.
Just what can Zuma offer his accuser, The People represented by The State, in
such a deal.
He could become a state witness against the Two Thints.
But The State does not need such evidence because it already has sufficient.
If Zuma wanted to make a deal, this should have been done in the 2001 to early
2003 timeframe, before the Schabir Shaik trial, before Bulelani Ngcuka and
Penuell Maduna made a dirty little deal with Thomson-CSF to abandon charges
against it.
Now is too late, now is opportunistic, now it would be a political deal which
would be outside of the mandate of the NPA to grant, even to negotiate.
The present (suspended) NDPP already has had charges laid against him of
negotiating plea deals which are not in the public interest.
This is one of those cases.
And (hopefully) so say all of us.