Former president Jacob Zuma, who has managed to delay facing trial over the 1990s arms deal for more than a decade, will not be going to jail anytime soon despite a warrant for his arrest issued on Tuesday.
Judge Dhayanithie Pillay ordered the arrest after the former president, who has also faced accusations by witnesses at the Zondo commission that he was at the centre of a state-capture project that led to the looting of state resources and a decade of lacklustre economic growth, failed to arrive for a scheduled hearing.
Before his expected appearance, Zuma’s lawyers had indicated that he would be unable to attend as he was receiving medical treatment overseas.
The warrant was issued after the court had discussed an allegedly dubious sick note, and the judge ruled that the former president’s legal team had not done enough to show why he had not arrived.
The warrant has been stayed, meaning it will not be enforced until May 6 when Zuma is supposed to appear in court for the resumption of his trial.
The former president stands accused of receiving bribes from his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, in exchange for interventions and assistance in aid of Shaik’s business interests.
Shaik was convicted in 2005 of facilitating a R500,000 a year payment for Zuma from French arms company Thales in exchange for the former president’s "political protection" from any investigation into the deal.
Zuma and Thales have long denied any wrongdoing and have sought to have the case dropped on the grounds that the long delayed court case had prejudiced them.
Pillay rejected the evidence provided by Zuma’s lawyers on Tuesday, saying it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the former president really was too ill to attend.
"Without that evidence, this court cannot do anything else but issue a warrant of arrest," she said.
Zuma also failed to appear at the Zondo commission into state capture in 2019 and his lawyers alleged then as well that he was too ill. In January, the commission heard that Zuma was receiving treatment overseas.
While Zuma’s lawyer, Dan Mantsha, did submit a document to Pillay, the judge had questions about various aspects of it.
She said the document, entitled "confidential" and marked as a pharmacy copy, had a military hospital stamp but no date and a section had an abbreviation that Mantsha could not explain.
Below that was typed "layman’s diagnosis for consent of patient" and in writing it said "medical condition".
The sick leave date on the form had been altered but had not been initialled and it was not clear that the person who signed the document was a medical doctor, Pillay said.
"The court accepts that Mr Zuma might well be unwell, [but] there is nothing to suggest that he is or is not," she said.
"In this regard what goes out in the public domain, in the media and what is exchanged by counsel is not evidence. What this court requires is evidence. Some authentic, reliable proof that Mr Zuma is indeed ill and when he will be available to stand trial."
Pillay explained that on Monday she had issued a warrant of arrest for an accused in another matter who failed to appear in court and did not provide medical records.
She said it was the duty of the court to ensure that everyone was treated equally, under and before the law.
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.