The corridor chatter in places legal is that the DA’s review of the NPA’s decision not to proceed with the prosecution of President Jacob Zuma should be successful

THE "good guys" in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and there are many of them*1, must be kicking themselves today because they did not charge Jacob Zuma and Schabir Shaik together in the same case. The latter was sentenced to 15 years for corrupting the former, who is now the president of SA. The benefit of hindsight, that 20/20 vision it invariably imparts, is not always so beneficial, as the contrasting fates of Zuma and Shaik show.

In the latest twist in the saga of the cases of these two senior African National Congress (ANC) members, the Democratic Alliance (DA), which launched a review of the NPA’s decision not to proceed with the prosecution of Zuma in 2009, has instructed its attorneys to institute contempt of court proceedings against the NPA. This unique step has been taken because it has failed to comply with the March 20 order of the Supreme Court of Appeal that it deliver, within 14 days, the record of all the documents, recordings, materials and evidence that were before it when it considered, and made, the fateful decision not to proceed with the 783 charges of corruption Zuma was facing in the run-up to the last general election in May 2009.

It needs to be borne in mind that when the acting national director of public prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe, announced the decision, he made it clear that the NPA was convinced it had a good case on the merits of the charges against Zuma.

In other words, the NPA was bullish about its prospects of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Zuma was corrupt.

The reason proffered for withdrawing the charges was that political interference in the process had so tainted the case that it would not be possible to give Zuma a fair trial.

Unfortunately, the evidence upon which this conclusion was based is far from relevant or convincing. The controversial conversation between former colleagues Bulelani Ngcuka and Leonard M cCarthy, neither of whom had any say in the matter of the pressing and timing of charges, is best characterised as idle and irrelevant gossiping, not as a train smash for the proper administration of criminal justice.

The person who made the decisions, Mpshe himself, was not aware of the content of the clandestinely taped conversation at any material time, so how it could have influenced or interfered with his decision-making processes remains a mystery and gives the DA good grounds for taking him on review, as it has done.

The small matter of how the tape recording relied upon by Mpshe came to be in the possession of the attorney acting for then private citizen Zuma, when there is no legal way in which this can happen, is also a matter that will cast doubt upon the propriety of the decision to withdraw the charges that Zuma was facing. And then, to complete the potted prehistory of the current issue, there is the embarrassing detail that the Hong Kong legal precedent that the NPA dug up to justify its otherwise mystifying decision was overturned on appeal before Mpshe relied on it. In short, the DA’s review has good prospects of success, if its merits can ever be reached by overcoming the delaying and point-taking tactics of the respondents in the matter.

If this occurs before Mangaung hosts the ANC’s elective national conference in December, then the cat will truly be among the pigeons. Whether the DA would prefer a second Zuma presidential term or not, the old legal axiom applies: justice delayed is justice denied. Retired chief justice Pius Langa had occasion to admonish Zuma’s legal team to desist from endless preliminary technical point-taking in earlier litigation; but the habit of the Stalingrad strategy seems to die hard.

In the DA’s press release announcing the decision to deal with the NPA’s disregard for the court order, certainly a lamentable state of affairs, a few rhetorical questions are raised in an attempt to breathe outrage into the wholly predictable. Usually, rhetorical questions have obvious answers, but this is not necessarily so in this instance. Seriatim:

"Is the failure to produce the record an indication that there is no record to produce?" This is hardly likely. The phalanx of exhausted and miserable-looking senior staff who flanked Mpshe as he made the announcement on national TV could not have been doing sweet nothing in the process of compiling the announcement. The fact that the announcement itself included mention of the strength of the merits of the case, in the view of the NPA, is an indication that there were conflicting views behind the looks of disappointed disbelief on the faces in the background. It is likely that a flurry of memorandums and e-mails preceded the announcement. Finding the Hong Kong case took effort. The NPA’s problem today is that these documents most likely point up the flaws in the decision made, hence the tardiness, possibly aimed at kicking the case into touch until the post-Mangaung period.

"Is it possible that there was no rational basis on which this crucial decision was taken?" Here the DA is closer to the mark. The taped conversation upon which the decision hinged seems to be legally irrelevant and practically of no real consequence. Its provenance is highly questionable; courts do not have regard to illegally acquired evidence and neither should the NPA.

"Was the decision taken on political grounds?" This is hyperbole. The grounds for the decision were announced at the time, they were couched in legal, not political, terms and the decision has to stand or fall on the cogency of the legal reasons given, irrespective of the background hum from highly placed cadres of the ANC, both within and outside the NPA, who were all undoubtedly putting political pressure on the hapless and vulnerable Mpshe.

"Is the NPA party to placing someone above the law just because he holds high political office?" It is not clear whether this last DA question refers to the alleged contempt of court now, or the original decision back in 2009. Section nine of the bill of rights guarantees equality before the law to all. The NPA is bound to respect and protect this. It is also supposed to act independently and "without fear, favour or prejudice".

Zuma was a private citizen when the prosecution was stopped. He was also leader of the ANC, a party that is openly and unashamedly striving for hegemonic control of all the levers of power in society. Zuma deployed Menzi Simelane (not Mpshe, who went after Jackie Selebi despite political interference in that, ultimately successful, prosecution process) as his new national director of public prosecutions. At the time, this was described as an "insurance policy" against the risk of the DA succeeding in the review, the completion of which is now being thwarted by foot-dragging and obfuscation. As the whole game plan of the ANC is to put party above state, or at least so commingle them as to render the two indistinguishable, the answer must unfortunately be a disgraceful "yes" on the aspects back then of the ambiguous question, as well as those now.

As the courts have sent Simelane packing by resoundingly upholding the rule of law, the corridor chatter in places legal is that the DA’s review should be successful. This involves the reinstatement of the 783 corruption charges. Should this happen, it remains to be seen whether Zuma will follow Humphrey Mmemezi, a former Gauteng MEC and art lover, into resignation in accordance with the new guidelines for comrades under a corruption cloud.

• Hoffman SC is with the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa