Former president Jacob Zuma says the state’s argument that he abused taxpayers’ money with a Stalingrad-style of litigation aimed at ensuring he never went on trial for corruption is “false” and “empty”.
“It’s not true. I’m not controlling the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as an organ of state. I’m not controlling the courts. I’m not. I don’t have that power they are talking about,” he told Business Day on Friday, shortly after judgment in his permanent stay of prosecution application was reserved.
The NPA says Zuma’s Stalingrad defence — a term used by his former advocate Kemp J Kemp to describe how the former president intended to fight his prosecution “in every room, in every street, in every house” — had “cost the state between R16.7m and R32m”.
“It has so far been successful in that it has allowed Mr Zuma to escape prosecution for almost 15 years,” the NPA argued, adding that SA’s courts have made it clear that such a litigation strategy should be discouraged”.
On Friday, Zuma, who is at risk of about 25 years behind bars for alleged corruption, hit out at judges who criticised his style of litigation “and said I had a strategy to delay cases, in other words, according to them, as a citizen of this country, I should not use my rights”.
According to Zuma, it was his view that when the “judiciary of this country ... see me, they see somebody wrong. Why? Because [the] NPA has been part of those who have been dirtying me and saying ‘that man is wrong’ and that has been influencing people who have been handling my matters”.
He further said the state’s argument about his Stalingrad campaign was “a continuation of this false face that is being shown, that this Zuma is a terrible man and other people are holy. It’s not true”.
Zuma insisted that far from being given “special treatment” because of his political status, “I have suffered a lot. I think I have been called a corrupt person for over a decade, with no one bringing a shred of evidence what it is that I’ve done.”
“My name has been rubbished by many people, including the NPA”.
Zuma maintains that if he had been tried with his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik, who was convicted in 2005 of corrupting him with 783 payments, he would have been acquitted. “I think that [not being charged with Shaik] was depriving me of an opportunity to cross-examine all other witnesses who would have come there, including if ... Schabir came to the box, including asking him very direct things.”
He maintains that if Shaik “had won the case, they would never charge me”.
The NPA maintains it has a “very strong” case against Zuma and French arms company Thales, which stands accused of bribing him to ensure his protection from any possible arms deal investigation.
Advocate for the NPA Wim Trengove, argued that it would be devastating for the rule of law in SA if Zuma, as a powerful political figure, succeeded in his bid to have his corruption trial stopped, as it could send a message “that not everyone is equal before the law”.
Trengrove contends that Zuma directly contributed to the delay in his prosecution through his various legal challenges to the case against him, whatever his motivation, and must shoulder some responsibility for the 14-year delay in the case against him.
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.