We did not pay Zuma rape accuser, says NPA

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), in response to Jacob Zuma’s last-ditch attempt to have his arms-deal corruption trial halted, has denied it made any payments to the woman who accused the former president of rape.

It also said she had been "protected and housed" by the police in a safe house.

Fezeka "Khwezi" Kuzwayo went into hiding after she accused Zuma in 2005. Her mother’s home in KwaMashu, north of Durban, was burnt down and following Zuma’s acquittal, she and her mother fled SA. Kuzwayo died in 2016.

Zuma, whose time as president of the country and the ANC was marred by allegations of state capture, said in court papers the rape case against him had been part of "concerted efforts to get me convicted of a crime", and to rule him out of the ANC’s 2007 leadership race.

The state was responding to a series of demands by Zuma’s lawyers for information he believes is relevant to his application for a permanent stay of his corruption prosecution.

Zuma’s application is his last hope of stopping his arms deal-related trial on charges of fraud, racketeering, corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.

He maintains that the NPA should answer to allegations that "public and private funds were used to influence the rape charge" laid against him more than a decade ago.

Tax returns

In a letter sent to Zuma’s lawyers on January 7, the state attorney said the NPA had been unable to find "copies of accounting payments relating to payments made from November 2005 to August 2008 to or for the complainant in the rape trial of Mr Zuma".

"Our instructions are the NPA made no payments to the complainant," it said.

As part of that response, the NPA had also handed over the "materials relating to the income tax offences" Zuma has been charged with, which relate to his alleged failure to submit tax returns from 1995 to 2003 and declare income of R2.7m, as well as the alleged evasion of R1.6m in taxes.

Zuma settled his tax issues with the SA Revenue Service after being served with the 2007 indictment. But the state’s lead investigator previously argued to the constitutional court that this settlement did not mean he should be let off the hook.

"The ‘regularisation’ of his tax affairs after years of delinquency does not exculpate him any more than a thief who repays the stolen money, or a shop-lifter who attempts to replace the stolen goods on the shelf after he is caught," Colonel Johan du Plooy said.

The state has also provided the documents and evidence that were in front of former national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka when he decided not to prosecute Zuma with his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik in 2003.

Prior to Shaik’s trial, Ngcuka announced that while the state believed it had a prima facie corruption case against Zuma, it was unsure whether that case was "winnable".

In May, the Pietermaritzburg high court will hear arguments from Zuma and French arms company Thales on why the case against them should not

go ahead.

In 1997, Thales, then known as Thompson-CSF, scored a R2.6bn contract to provide four navy frigates to SA, as part of the wider R60bn arms deal.

The state says Thales allegedly agreed in 2002 to pay R500,000 to Zuma, then SA’s deputy president, for his "political protection" in any investigation — a deal allegedly brokered by Shaik.

The state’s case against Zuma is that Shaik made 783 payments to Zuma totalling more than R4m in the 10-year period between October 25 1995 and July 1 2005. In return for these payments, the state says Zuma abused his formal position as MEC and as deputy president of the ANC to do unlawful favours for Shaik, who was ultimately jailed for his role in the matter.

Zuma says his prosecution has been defined by political manipulation, undue delay and "blatant prosecutorial bias", all designed "to prejudice me and declare me synonymous with crime and corruption".