|
The spy tapes aren’t Zuma’s |
| Publication |
City Press |
| Date | 2012-11-04 |
| Reporter | Adriaan Basson |
| Web Link | www.citypress.co.za |
Is the president employing
delaying tactics, or is there something on those tapes he wants to hide from
the DA and SA, asks Adriaan Basson
To fully understand
the relevance of the current debate about the so-called Zuma spy tapes, it
is important to remember that there were two
sets of tapes.
The first set was leaked to Zuma and his attorney, Michael Hulley, in the
summer of 2008. Zuma was off the hook for a while after Judge Chris
Nicholson bizarrely ruled there was political
interference in his prosecution.
This judgment was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal in early 2009,
in effect restoring the charges against Zuma.
Zuma had to fight a national election in May 2009 and couldn’t afford a
corruption cloud hanging over his head.
So the spy tapes came at a very handy time
as Zuma’s legal team was preparing to make representations to the National
Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on why the charges against him should be
dropped.
Zuma’s political supporters – including Professor Sipho Seepe, former Judge
Willem Heath and ANC heavyweight Lindiwe Sisulu – were punting a political
or legal solution to Zuma’s corruption headache.
It is still unclear exactly who leaked the tapes to Zuma and Hulley, but
there is overwhelming evidence that this first set came from the police’s
crime intelligence division, which was fighting a turf war with the
Scorpions at the time.
Hulley invited the NPA to come to his Durban office to listen to the tapes.
Former acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe sent
his deputies, Willie Hofmeyr and Sibongile
Mzinyathi, to Durban to listen to the tapes.
Hulley couldn’t unlock the encryption software he needed to play the tapes
to them and they returned to Pretoria empty-handed.
A few days later, Hulley, a private attorney, came to Pretoria after
obtaining the encryption software that is used by the state’s security
agencies.
This time he managed to play the tapes to Hofmeyr and Mzinyathi. They
weren’t allowed to keep copies of the tapes and could only make notes of
what they heard.
They reported back to Mpshe that Zuma was in possession of recordings that
showed Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy and former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka
were discussing the timing of Zuma’s charges in relation to the ANC’s
December 2007 Polokwane conference.
Realising the seriousness of the allegations and the impact it could have on
their case against Zuma, Mpshe wrote to the National Intelligence Agency
(NIA) and the police’s crime intelligence division, asking if they had
similar tapes that were obtained with the permission of a judge.
Neither Hulley nor Zuma have ever stated whether the recordings they were
given were obtained lawfully and legally.
The NIA responded to Mpshe, confirming that they had intercepted McCarthy’s
calls as part of their investigation into the Scorpions’ Browse Mole report.
The cops didn’t respond.
Browse Mole was an intelligence document claiming that Zuma had received
financial support from African leaders, including the slain Libyan leader
Muammar Gaddafi and Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, to topple
Mbeki at Polokwane.
At his press briefing on April 6 2009, during which he announced the
dropping of the Zuma charges, Mpshe confirmed that they received these
recordings from the NIA. This was the second set of tapes.
“NIA indicated that it was able to share these legally with the NPA for the
purposes of the investigation and for reaching a decision in this matter.
Thus the NPA was able to make transcripts of the relevant portions of the
recordings for this purpose and NIA has declassified these transcripts as
they are not relevant to its own investigation.
“The NPA is thus confident that its decision is based on information that
was intercepted legally and obtained legally by the NPA.
The transcripts contain material that was of vital importance in the NPA
reaching its decision, and the NPA has decided to make its contents public
as it believes it is in the public interest to do so. The transcripts have
been declassified. The NPA believes that there is no legal impediment to its
doing so,” Mpshe said.
On the same day he released “relevant portions” of the interceptions,
showing McCarthy, Ngcuka, businessman Mzi Khumalo and others discussing the
timing of Zuma’s case.
The current legal dispute*1 between the
DA, the NPA and Hulley is about whether the full
transcript of the NIA tapes should be given to the DA or not.
This may include portions that were not released by Mpshe to the media for
a variety of reasons.
The DA says they are entitled to the full transcript as it is clear, and
confirmed by Mpshe, that this was the main and
only reason the charges against Zuma were dropped. During his press
briefing, Mpshe confirmed the withdrawal had nothing to do with the merits
of the charges or the fairness of the trial.
The NPA believes they were obliged to show Hulley a copy of the full
transcript first if he had any objection to it being disclosed to the DA.
Hulley has now objected and says Zuma will go to court to prevent the DA
from having access to the full transcript of the NIA tapes – recordings that
weren’t given to him in the first place or belong to him or Zuma.
Is this a delaying tactic? Zuma wouldn’t want the spy tapes saga to be back
in the news before Mangaung. Or is there something on those tapes, maybe in
relation to the Browse Mole investigation, that the president would want to
hide?
» Basson is the author of Zuma Exposed (Jonathan Ball), which will be
available nationwide from November 15
With acknowledgement to Adriaan Basson and City Press.
*1
The transcripts are one thing.
Far more important is the record on which Mpshe based his decision.
The logic is that if Mpshe based his decision only on the written
representations regarding the intercepts, then such decision was not
reasonable as he never applied his mind to all the facts and circumstances
of the matter.
This is the crux of this biscuit: Mpshe never applied his mind to all the
facts and circumstances of the matter.
This is now on record.
Mpshe claims he only had in his mind the accused's written representations
and those of a few others which he didn't in any case take seriously, viz.
DA, J. Lewis, COPE Youth, Advocates of Democracy, S. van Straaten, Gadfly
von Jong).
Mpshe is in essence saying he ignored the plethora of hard core legal advice
from his own advocates plus that of independent advocates plus the evidence
of criminal investigators plus that of forensic investigators.
The fact of the matter is that McCarthy's and Ngcuka's involvement, while
silly and wrongful, does not amount to interference of the investigation or
the indictment or the chances of a fair trial.
In any case, if these aspects were truly up for contention, then this should
itself have gone before an independent judge.
Mpshe was no independent; he was a sleeper who had been recruited years
before and got invoked when Mbeki and Zuma were in tight spots with Vusi
Pikoli.
When this matter finally gets to court, the poverty of Mpshe's decision will
be shown to all with the end result that charges against Zuma and Thint will
be re-constituted.
In the meantime, Once One-Term Zuma is going for a second term in a
desperate attempt to keep out the slammer for another 5 years.