Jacob Zuma’s legal team has made representations to the National Prosecuting Authority which may result in it dropping the charges against him. Chris Barron asked Judge Willem Heath, who is one of Zuma’s advisors ...

Do you think Zuma is going to stand trial or not?

If the prosecuting authority approaches the present problem objectively then they will probably withdraw the charges against him.


What is the present problem?

The representations that have been made.


What are these representations?

I haven’t had sight of them because there was an agreement between the lawyers for Zuma and the NPA not to disclose the contents to anybody.


Do they concern information he has about the role of Thabo Mbeki and others in the arms deal?

I don’t know for a fact, but I would guess so. It is likely that they would have included that .


Why should the NPA drop the charges because of this?

I would think they’ve got a thorough defence which they would have presented to the NPA. It’s possible that they’ve disclosed the names of other culprits and therefore the NPA would have to take that into account on the basis of the public interest as a factor in making up their minds.


Why should the NPA drop the charges because he might disclose names?

I don’t believe they should simply because he’s mentioned other names, but if he’s playing along and he’s disclosed a proper defence then I believe they should drop the charges.


Why shouldn’t his defence be heard in court?

It’s a normal thing in terms of the constitution that representations are considered by the prosecuting authority. And if they find that the defence does have a negative impact on their own evidence, then it is a common occurrence for them to withdraw the case against the accused.


What would it do to the rule of law in this country if the charges were dropped at this stage?

Well, section 179 (of the constitution) is very much part of the rule of law, and that is the facility that was created in the constitution to make representations. So it is part of the rule of law to make those representations.


What about public perception?

I’m sure the prosecuting authority will take this into account.


What do you think the perception would be if the charges were dropped?

I think a very substantial percentage of the population would be happy. But also a substantial percentage of the community is going to be unhappy. They can never satisfy both sides.


What about the fact that two directors of the NPA have until now believed the evidence against Zuma was strong enough to justify him being charged?

Just looking at that in isolation is of course a strong indication that they’ve got a case with which they should proceed. But now they’ve been given information by the defence which would inevitably include the defence of Zuma to those charges. Now they’ve got the other side of the story and it’s one of the principles of our law that they need to consider that against the backdrop of their own evidence. That changes the whole set-up.


If Zuma has this compelling information, why has he waited until now to produce it?

He’s never been invited to produce it.


Couldn’t he have approached the NPA and said he had information which might alter the case against him?

The prosecuting authority needs to inform the accused that they’re at a stage where they would like to accept representations, and this is exactly what has happened now. This is actually the first time there is a comprehensive charge sheet he can respond to.


You’ve argued that a political settlement would be in the national interest. Why?

I don’t think the ANC has embarked on a political settlement here. The representations before the NPA are for a settlement or an agreement in terms of the law.


How would it be in the national interest if there were a perception that some people are above the law?

It is a common thing that the prosecution withdraws a case, so why should he be dealt with differently from all the other accused over the years?


If Zuma were sufficiently concerned about the national interest, wouldn’t he have stood down until the case was resolved?

That question has given me problems in the past. My response is that at the moment he is presumed to be innocent, so why should he step down?


Because having the president in court may not be in the national interest.

I’ve said that’s a difficult question, and that’s the only answer I’ve got to it.

With acknowledgements to Chris Barron and Sunday Times.