Jacob Zuma lays the ground for the first big battle in his trial

Former president Jacob Zuma has made no secret of his deep suspicion of the judiciary and his belief that certain judges had improperly decided that he would “never win a case” in their courts.

Zuma’s vocal criticism of the courts was most recently articulated in his “Zooming with the Zumas” interview with his son Duduzane, when he stated that “if again the judiciary in this country do not like Zuma, they want to put Zuma in jail, I will go there and serve and my conscience will be free, knowing very well I never did anything wrong”.

In other words, Zuma suggests, the judiciary is biased against him. And if he is found guilty of the corruption, racketeering, fraud and tax-evasion charges he faces, it will be because the court trying him does not “like” him.

Within days of these statements being broadcast last month, Zuma demanded answers from KwaZulu-Natal judge president Achmat Jappie about his alleged “secret” and “improper” contact with the lead prosecutor in his corruption trial, Billy Downer.

‘Trial ready’

Zuma wants answers about why Jappie corresponded with Downer about when his and French arms company Thales trial was likely to proceed, an issue that is already the subject of heated debate between the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the defence. Zuma is adamant that he wants to go on trial in October, while the state contends that the case will be certified as “trial ready” for 2021.

Jappie had also asked Downer about whether the state intended to amend its indictment against Zuma, given that it had recently uncovered several additional allegedly corrupt payments to him. The NPA says there is nothing untoward in such discussions, as the judge president exercises ultimate oversight over trial court allocations and dates.

What appears to have complicated things is that the defence teams and state had been interacting with deputy judge president Mjabuliseni Madondo before the discussions between Jappie and Downer. Zuma has demanded to know why, in these circumstances, Jappie was discussing case details with the state without including his lawyers in those discussions.

“Unless a satisfactory explanation is given our client will be left with no choice but to suspect that there are attempts to manipulate the composition of the bench which ought to hear this matter,” Zuma’s attorney Eric Mabuza wrote to Jappie.

“We have indicated to our client that this must be some misunderstanding or genuine error. However, given the history of this matter and how he believes he is being persecuted by the system, he remains apprehensive and concerned by what appears to be secret and inappropriate discussions between the state and the honourable judge president.”

Jappie has yet to respond to Zuma’s accusations, which the NPA has dismissed as “unfounded”, but they pave the way for the former president to object to the judge president’s role in selecting the judge who will decide his fate. This much is clear from calls by the JG Zuma Foundation for chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and the Judicial Services Commission “to look into these developments with the view of restoring the integrity of the legal system of SA”.

The unfolding dispute is now expected to result in lawyers for the state, Zuma and Thales appearing in person at the Pietermaritzburg high court on Tuesday, instead of simply postponing the case in absentia.

While what happens in that hearing will be anyone’s guess, it’s clear that Zuma’s complaint about Jappie is not an arbitrary one. The former president is preparing for the first big battle of his trial: the selection of the judge who will decide his guilt or innocence. And who will make that selection.