Publications
Partners
The case against former president Jacob Zuma is a diabolic intersection between law and politics and the biased nature in which the NPA handled the case has framed Zuma in a manner that has painted him as a villain, leading to the court of public opinion vying for blood without first establishing whether he is guilty or not.
These were the arguments presented before the Pietermaritzburg division of the KwaZulu-Natal High Court on Monday by Zuma’s senior counsel, Muzi Sikhakhane, as his client and co-accused French arms company Thales appeared before the court, seeking a permanent stay of prosecution.
The former president is facing 16 charges of fraud, money laundering, corruption and racketeering linked to 783 payments that French company Thales allegedly made to him in connection with the infamous arms deal.
Read: Zuma’s co-accused arms company doesn’t believe a fair trial is possible
“All citizens, if accused of doing something wrong must be prosecuted, yes, but within the confines of the law,” argued Sikhakhane who added that his client was not being afforded this luxury by a “biased NPA”.
He argued that South Africa’s first national director of public prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, in announcing that Schabir Shaik, the one-time financial adviser to Jacob Zuma, would be prosecuted alone for corruption even though there was a prima facie evidence against the former president “who arguably was an accomplice prejudiced” his client.
Zuma’s legal team argued that Shaik being charged alone was a means of testing whether the charges put forward by the NPA would stick.
“This was a test run for the NPA and Ngcuka to test that if at a later stage they decide to charge the big fish, Zuma, they would know whether they had a case or not,” said Sikhakhane.
He insisted that although the former president had been complicit in the almost 16-year delay in the matter appearing before a competent court, the significant delay was caused by the NPA.
“Ngcuka was duty-bound to prosecute the minute he established that there was at least prima facie evidence. The delay then falls squarely on this organ of the state that decided not to prosecute at that point.
“To any objective and truly unbiased mind, the prejudice and injustice visited on Zuma is self-evident. The facts and history of the Zuma prosecution … reveal a pattern of unlawful conduct that should attract the severest reprimand by our courts,” argued Sikhakhane.
He also went on to argue that Ngcuka and former Scorpions head Leonard McCarthy were both openly biased in the manner they handled the case.
“For one, Ngcuka standing before South Africans and openly expressing that there was a prima facie case against Zuma altered South African opinion and framed him in a manner that the court of public opinion is now vying for blood without trying to locate whether he is guilty or not.”
Transcripts of phone conversations between McCarthy and Ngcuka form part of what have become known as the “spy tapes”.
Sikhakhane added that the spy tapes revealed that long after Ngcuka had left the NPA, he was still conspiring on whether or not to charge Zuma and when to charge him with prosecutors.
Sikhakhane urged the court not to take the legal philosophy of mob justice but rather to abide by the Constitution and presume his client innocent until proven guilty, regardless of Ngcuka having made a public spectacle of ascribing guilt on his client without affording him a trial.
Zuma and Thales are applying for a permanent stay of prosecution on the fraud, corruption, racketeering and money laundering charges against them.
 |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
