Confident: Thanda Mngwengwe believes he made the right decision
Picture: Halden Krog

Scorpions boss sticks to his guns

The man who charged Jacob Zuma with corruption and fraud says he still stands by his decision to indict the ANC president.

Thanda Mngwengwe, the head of the now defunct Scorpions unit, spoke for the first time publicly to the Sunday Times yesterday about Zuma’s representations to the acting national director of public prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe.

Mngwengwe was reacting to speculation that Mpshe was seriously considering dropping the case against the former deputy president.

It has been speculated that Zuma’s legal team has presented new information which could force Mpshe to drop the case.

The information is said to implicate former president Thabo Mbeki in arms deal corruption and allegedly also prove that Zuma’s case was politically motivated.

Zuma is due to appear in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg in August on 16 charges, including racketeering, corruption, money laundering and fraud.

The charges mirror those which saw Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, convicted of fraud and corruption. Shaik has since received medical parole.

Mngwengwe ­ who replaced former Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy when the latter left to join the World Bank ­ told the Sunday Times that Mphse had not yet consulted him about Zuma’s representations.

In terms of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, Mphse should review a decision to prosecute or not after consulting with the prosecutor in the matter (Mngwengwe) ­ and after hearing representations from the accused.

Mpshe has indicated, in a letter to DA leader Helen Zille, that a decision on whether or not to prosecute Zuma could be expected soon after March 27.

Mpshe was responding to Zille’s request on Thursday for the DA to be allowed to make representations to the NPA as it considered the Zuma matter.

Mngwengwe said he had confidence in Mpshe to “do the right thing”.

“I do not want to pre-empt (Mpshe’s) decision. I want to give him the space. For me, I do not have any reason to doubt him at this stage.”

Mngwengwe expressed confidence that “if Mpshe feels that he is persuaded by the representations or that there is substance in the representations that are placed before him, he is going to consult me, as the law enjoins him to do so”.

Mngwengwe stressed that he still believed he was correct to indict Zuma.

“I stand by my decision until and unless the NDPP (Mpshe) decides otherwise.

“Even if the NDPP were to decide to drop the case, I am confident that maybe it would be some other facts, which were outside the facts that were presented to us, which may persuade him to drop the charges,” he said.

Mngwengwe said he was prepared to defend his decision to prosecute Zuma.

“My decision is out there in the open. If there were anything wrong with my decision, based on the facts, people would say that. ..

“But this matter has been highly litigated and there has been no fault that has been found, so far, on our part.

“Just the other day, as you know, the Constitutional Court confirmed everything that we did as far as this matter is concerned,” he said.

Mngwengwe was referring to the Constitutional Court ruling confirming the lawfulness of search-and-seizure operations at the premises of Zuma, his attorney, Michael Hulley, and arms company Thint.

The Constitutional Court also dismissed Zuma and Thint’s bid to prevent the NPA from bringing original documents from Mauritius to South Africa for use in the corruption trial.

Mngwengwe said: “I am prepared to defend the decision (to prosecute Zuma. That is why we went to court and that is why we went to the Supreme Court (of Appeal) to appeal (Judge Chris Nicholson’s ruling that the prosecution of Zuma was invalid ).

“We went to court because we wanted to defend our decision. We have always done that, without fear or favour.

“I do not think, sitting here, that there is anything wrong, or some wrongfulness that can be imputed to me or the process that was followed in arriving at the decision that we arrived at.”

Mngwengwe added that if there were “anything which (Zuma’s) representations revealed that favoured the accused (Zuma), so be it.

“For me, it’s just work. It is not that I have anything personal against the accused (Zuma). Unlike the DA’s representations, I am not viewing this matter from a political angle.

“I was appointed to serve the country and I am serving it. And it is not because I have a particular agenda against the accused (Zuma) or that I have to really make sure that the accused is convicted at all costs.

“Our (duty) is to place the facts before the court and let the court decide.” *1

Long and winding legal road

August 23 2003: Former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka announces Schabir Shaik will be charged with corruption and fraud, but Zuma will not be charged.

June 2 2005: Shaik is found guilty and jailed for 15 years.

June 20 2005: New NPA boss Vusi Pikoli announces Zuma will be charged .

August 18 2005: Scorpions raid Zuma’s homes and offices of his attorney, Michael Hulley.

February 15 2006: Durban High Court finds search-and-seizure warrants against Zuma and Hulley to be unlawful .

September 5 2006: NPA asks Pietermaritzburg High Court to postpone trial of Zuma and Thint.

September 20 2006: NPA’s request for a postponement is denied and case is struck from roll.

November 8 2006: Appeal Court upholds NPA’s appeal and declares the search warrants legal .

December 28 2006: NPA re-charges Zuma.

July 31 2008: Constitutional Court finds both August 2005 search-and-seizure warrants and request for the Mauritian documents valid.

September 12 2008: Judge Chris Nicholson finds NPA’s decision to prosecute Zuma invalid and orders indictment to be set aside.

January 12 2009: NPA successfully appeals against Judge Nicholson’s decision.

May 12 2009: Zuma due to apply to Constitutional Court to set aside the SCA appeal.

August 25 2009: Provisional date for Zuma’s trial in Pietermaritzburg High Court, where he is expected to apply for a permanent stay of prosecution if Constitutional Court turns down his appeal. ­ Compiled by Kim Hawkey

Related Content