The NPA Investigation : Statement by Deputy President Jacob Zuma

I have decided to issue this statement to clarify my position regarding the list of questions submitted to me by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). I want to state that the questions were forwarded to me after much legal pressure was brought to bear on the NPA by my legal representatives.

1. For some three years the NPA has been investigating allegations of criminal conduct said to have arisen from the contracts known to the public as the arms deal.

2. For about the same length of time, there have been rumours that I was a suspect in these investigations. Until very recently, the NPA refused to confirm or deny these rumours.

3. I have had to learn from the media and from affidavits submitted by the NPA in court proceedings to which I was not a party that the allegation against me is that I solicited a bribe of R500 000 per year to protect a French company from being investigated for contraventions arising from the arms deal.

4. This allegation is utterly baseless. I have said before for the record, and repeat, that I have nothing to hide and reject with contempt any suggestion that I solicited or in any way agreed to accept or even discussed accepting a bribe.

5. I want to deal with the context in which the list of questions was forthcoming. As I shall show, the questions were provided after much legal pressure was brought to bear on the national directorate by my lawyers.

6. This story starts in December 2002. In a letter dated 11 December 2002, my former attorneys wrote to the national director. They pointed out how the arms deal investigation was dragging on and at what cost to me personally. They asked for many things. Amongst other things they asked for written confirmation or denial of the reports that an investigation into my affairs and/or conduct was under way. They also asked for:

"An undertaking that no further documentation generated by the investigation or under the NPA's control is leaked to any third party, including any media organisation." (my emphasis)

7. In the same letter my cooperation in any lawful investigation was tendered.

8. The reply to this letter, dated 17 December 2002, signed by the national director, was brief. The letter said:

"It is not in the nature of our business to disclose prematurely the substance and subjects of an investigation other than through legal process.

"We note your interest and mandate in this matter and wish to record that the NPA or any of its organs is not responsible for the leakage of documents or information and the current controversy in the media.

"Should it become necessary, we will inform you of steps to be taken in the light of your offer."

9. In a letter dated 9 May 2003, my present attorneys wrote to the national director. They pointed out amongst other things that they read in an affidavit dated 24 August 2001 in an application to court made by the NPA for search warrants, that the NPA had gone on record to the effect that it was conducting an investigation against me. In the light of that affidavit, the refusal to tell my attorneys whether or not an investigation was in progress against me was incomprehensible. My attorneys demanded an answer. They wrote as follows:

"The suggestion you made in December 2002, that the disclosure of whether an investigation was being conducted into our client's conduct would in these circumstances be premature, appears to us to be insupportable. Be that as it may: it is now May 2003 and the matter has not progressed at all.

"There have even been reports in the media that an investigation into our client's conduct is under way. You have refused to respond to these reports and your Minister has, in the public media, categorically denied any knowledge of such an investigation.

"Our client, in his capacity as a South African citizen, is bitterly aggrieved at the conduct of your office towards him. He has nothing to hide and rejects with contempt any suggestion that he has solicited or in any way agreed to accept or even discussed accepting a bribe.

"Our client has specifically instructed us to put it to you that he requires from you no special treatment or deference to the high public office, which he holds; on the contrary, he requires that you afford him the same scrupulously fair treatment as any other South African might claim from you.

"If you or any duly authorised functionary of your office forms the view that a prosecution is warranted, our client recognises that it is your constitutional duty to bring such prosecution as soon as is reasonable possible. But to leave matters in limbo in this way makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for our client to defend his good name and reputation and is, in the circumstances of the case, a serious violation of our client's rights, not least his rights to dignity and procedurally fair administrative action.

"As any citizen would, our client demands that you now tell him, forthrightly and unequivocally and in writing, whether or not your office is conducting an investigation against him, either pursuant to Section 28 of the NPAA or at all.

"Without prejudice to his other rights to require that you furnish this information to him, our client addresses you in addition under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000 ("PAIA") and requests you under PAIA to give him access to a record. The request is in terms of the prescribed form, signed by our client personally, which is attached hereto."

10. Only then, in a letter dated 30 May 2003, did the national director confirm for the record that an investigation was under way against me. The national director then offered, for the record, to receive my version of events by way of a response to a list of questions.

11. My attorneys responded in a letter dated 17 June 2003. They wrote, amongst other things:

"In your letter dated 30 May 2003, you state for the first time, unequivocally and for the record that an investigation is under way against our client. He would have preferred that he be confronted with allegations considerably more specific than those in your letter but appreciates that you are probably just not able to be more specific.

"Moving forward: you offer in your letter to provide our client with a written set of questions regarding the issues to which you require a response from him. Our client welcomes this offer. It is hereby accepted. We look forward to receiving the list of questions without undue delay."

12. The correspondence shows that I was aggrieved by the national director's failure to afford me an opportunity to put my version before him. Only after I voiced my grievance through my lawyers did he invite me to answer a list of written questions. I accepted his offer and called upon him to provide the list of questions without undue delay.

13. Under cover of a fax dated 9 July 2003 and in response to my express invitation, a list of questions was submitted to my attorney. I was invited to answer these questions, if I so chose. The point was made that:

"(h)e is, however, not compelled to submit an affidavit or to offer any incriminating evidence."

14. The fax concluded:

"It would be appreciated if his version could be received at your earliest convenience, preferably before the end of the month."

15. My attorney replied by fax dated 15 July 2003:

"The matter is receiving attention. We will revert in due course."

16. I considered many of the questions invasive of my privacy and unrelated to any conceivable contravention of the law arising from the Arms Procurement Process. Despite my reservations about the process I have always been careful to avoid any action which could give rise to any suggestion that I was interfering with or seeking to influence the investigation.

17. Despite my reservations, I decided to reply to the questions. The interests of justice demand that the investigation be brought to a speedy close.

18. I had already begun working on a draft response prepared by my counsel when, as I have said before, to my amazement and outrage, I found that the Sunday press of 27 July carried front page stories with graphic detail of all the questions.

19. This is not the first time that there have been leaks to the media of information gathered by the Scorpions for the Arms Deal investigation. Indeed, throughout, there has been a consistent pattern of such leaks.

20. Indeed, in July 2003 I received evidence which strongly pointed to a leak of documents seized by the Scorpions during a raid. Well before the leak of the questions to the Sunday press, I instructed my attorney to bring this matter to the attention of the National Commissioner of the SA Police Services, which my attorney did in a fax dated 21 July 2003.

21. Given the history of the matter and the serious nature of the leaks, I would have expected that the NPA and the Ministry of Justice would have ensured that a thorough investigation was carried out by the proper authorities and would have refrained from attributing blame for the leaks on the strength of a hasty, cursory investigation.

22. I said over the weekend that I would consider my position in the light of the leaks. I have done so. I wish to reiterate that there was no deadline set for my response. I shall respond at my earliest convenience.

23. I wish to express my unqualified support for the principle that every accused person is entitled to a fair investigation, uncontaminated by ulterior motives on the part of the investigating authorities, a speedy conclusion of the investigation and a fair trial in open court and ensuring that justice prevail.

Issued by Deputy President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, 30 July 2003

With acknowledgement to Deputy President Jacob Zuma and South African Government Online.