The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has missed its court-ordered deadline to explain why former president Jacob Zuma must go on trial for corruption — and Zuma’s lawyers are fuming.
The state was due to file an answer to Zuma’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution on Friday, but wrote to his attorney Daniel Mantsha on February 21 to say the prosecutors need until March 11 to do so.
Apart from arguing that the case should be stopped because of the NPA’s “undue delays” in both charging him and putting him on trial, Zuma insists the case against him has been irrevocably tainted by political interference and prosecutorial irregularities.
While Zuma’s application runs into thousands of pages, prosecutor Billy Downer initially expressed confidence that the state would be able to address the accusations leveled against it by Zuma within a month.
While the NPA has not responded to requests as to why it hasn’t met its court deadline, the delay comes after prosecutors filed an application to obtain 17 documents from Zuma, which he referred to in his permanent stay application on February 20. These documents include Zuma’s answers to the NPA about certain aspects of the corruption investigation into him; the NPA’s response to a 2003 letter sent by Zuma’s lawyers to prosecutors; letters from the Scorpions to Zuma’s lawyers; media reports; and NPA media statements.
Zuma’s lawyers maintain the state already has the documents in question.
Take this ‘seriously’
“Clearly, your letter accusing us of not furnishing you with the right index or annexures is nothing but a way to buy yourselves time,” Mantsha said in a February 21 letter to the NPA.
“We do not require any time extensions as you suggest, and the NPA has had more than a decade to know what their case is about. We are sceptical about being party to any time delays, after which you may well attribute every delay to our client.”
In a follow-up letter, sent on Thursday, Mantsha again stresses that the NPA has all the documents it seeks. “We also hope that your good office takes this matter as seriously as it is for our client,” he adds.
“This case may well be a career obsession for some in your legal team and a political game for the NPA, but in fairness, it is about our client’s life. We would appreciate it if you started conducting yourselves in accordance with the principles that guide the NPA’s constitutional obligations.”
The NPA has declined to comment on any of these assertions. It will now need to apply for condonation from the court in filing its response late.
It is the state’s case that Zuma’s former financial advisor Schabir Shaik and his company Nkobi Holdings made 783 payments to Zuma, totaling more than R4m, in the 10-year period between October 25 1995 and July 1 2005. In return for these payments, the state claims, Zuma abused his formal position as MEC in KwaZulu-Natal and as deputy president of the ANC to undertake unlawful favours for Shaik and his company.
The state further alleges that French arms company Thales “conspired with Shaik and Zuma to pay Zuma the amount of R500,000 per annum as a bribe” in exchange for Zuma’s protection from any arms deal investigations. While Shaik claims this payment was, in fact, a donation to the Jacob Zuma RDP Education Trust, the Durban high court rejected the claim as “nothing short of ridiculous”.
Zuma denies any wrongdoing.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.