Zuma has ‘lost trust’ in his lawyers in bitter 11th-hour split that will delay trial

NEWS ANALYSIS

Former president Jacob Zuma’s associates are casting around for new legal counsel to represent him pro bono on charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering as the trial heads for an inevitable delay after the withdrawal of his defence team.

“I am trying to find lawyers who will help him,” a source close to the former president said this week, adding that Zuma’s confidante Dudu Myeni, the former chairperson of SAA and the Jacob Zuma Foundation, was also involved in these efforts.

The source insisted that Zuma did not part ways with his instructing attorney, Eric Mabuza, and senior counsel, advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, in a bid to delay the start of the trial on 17 May or because he could no longer afford them, but because differences on how his defence should be handled had led to a breakdown of trust.

“It’s not about delaying things, and it wasn’t about money at all. They have never been paid,” the source said.

[related_posts_sc article_id=”409007″]

Mabuza has confirmed that money was not the reason why he and Sikhakhane withdrew as Zuma’s legal representatives on 21 April, saying instead that the decision was taken “for professional reasons”. Sikhakhane declined to comment, but it is understood that he is owed millions.

Sources said the discord partly stemmed from Zuma and his inner circle’s insistence that he would implicate others in corruption in the 1990s arms-procurement programme. Although the legal team eventually left for “ethical reasons”, Zuma believes they have acted unethically in stating their reasons for withdrawing, and that Sikhakhane has yielded to external pressure.

History of the bribes

The former president stands accused of taking a bribe from French arms manufacturer Thales through his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik, who was convicted of two counts of corruption and one of fraud in 2005 and handed a 15-year sentence. 

Shaik made 783 payments totalling R1.2-million to Zuma, although reportedly investigations have detailed further payments.

In Shaik’s version, the largesse came down to friendship, but the high court found his relationship with Zuma was one of “mutually beneficial symbiosis”.

A defence team would conceivably seek to argue that Zuma rendered no service in return for the payments, but the state is viewed as having a sound case and the former president’s lawyers would have conveyed as much to him. Zuma wanted to argue that, contrary to inferences from money flows, he did not abuse his power as a member of the KwaZulu-Natal government at the time of negotiations, but later, as deputy president to Thabo Mbeki, learned that others had done so.

“How can they say this is not about the arms deal? It is about that, and the former president wanted to talk about and name people and to clear his name, but his lawyers said you can’t do that,” his associate said.

“He is old … he wants to die in peace, even if it means that the judges send him to jail. The courts are wrong, and the people who are in power now must remember that when they lose power, the same will be done to them.”

Millions in court fees

In other words, Zuma wanted to argue again that the ruling political class unfairly persecuted him with the help of biased judges. This strategy has put him at risk of a contempt order from the Constitutional Court and scandalised the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) as it weighed his appeal bid on state funding for his legal costs.

The team’s withdrawal was communicated to the National Prosecuting Authority and the state attorney days after the SCA dismissed Zuma’s appeal against a Pretoria high court ruling that he repay the state about R15-million in legal fees, much of it spent during his presidency as he fought the reinstatement of the charges.

The SCA ruled the state attorney’s undertaking — first given in 2006 and later renewed in 2008 — to fund Zuma’s private counsel was unlawful.

The payments began earlier with a watching brief for Zuma’s lawyers during Shaik’s trial and, to date, total almost R25-million.

The appellate court confirmed the high court’s decision that the state attorney should draft a complete account of the payments and recover the money from Zuma. It also punished Zuma with a cost order for accusing the high court judges who heard the matter of having left their judicial station.

Feeling lucky with new representation

Zuma has changed lawyers twice since the corruption charges against him were reinstated by then national director of public prosecutions Shaun Abrahams in March 2018 — each time a few weeks before a crucial court date and within the context of his losing battle to get the state to keep footing the bill.

He parted ways with Durban attorney Michael Hulley after 12 years of loyal service, some three weeks before he was due in court on 27 July 2018.

This was after the Democratic Alliance had filed papers seeking an order barring the state from further funding Zuma’s defence. President Cyril Ramaphosa indicated that he would not oppose the matter.

When Zuma duly appeared in court in July 2018, it was with former Denel chairperson Daniel Mantsha as his new instructing attorney. 

The case was postponed to 20 November that year to give Zuma’s legal team, which now included advocate Mike Hellens and Sikhakhane, time to apply for a permanent stay of prosecution.

The high court eventually dismissed the application, and in March 2020, the SCA denied Zuma leave to appeal. The next month Zuma ended Mantsha’s brief and announced that Mabuza would replace him.

Sikhakhane stayed on as the accused changed attorneys.

Mabuza and Sikhakhane must explain why they left

But Mabuza lasted exactly a year, and this time Sikhakhane and the rest of the team also left — leaving Zuma without an attorney and an advocate at the 11th hour. 

The pair would, a criminal lawyer said, have risked extensive professional embarrassment continuing the brief in a high-profile case with no financial reward.

As per a letter from KwaZulu-Natal Deputy Judge President Isaac Madondo, Mabuza must appear in court on 17 May to formally present his reasons for withdrawal. 

“It is accordingly required that you attend court on the day of trial and formally ask for leave to withdraw with full reasons. Until the court grants you permission to withdraw, you will not be excused from attendance,” the letter, dated 28 April, states.

Zuma is understood to regard the full reasons for the withdrawal as a betrayal. A senior source in the judiciary said whether Mabuza presents himself at court or sends a representative, a delay is inevitable.

“The question is how long,” the source said.

Zuma’s associate insisted that he lacked the independent means to pay legal counsel.

“He is broke. He cannot sell his home. He cannot sell Nkandla because it was built on land allocated to the village chief, and with his responsibilities, if he has R10 000, maybe R20 000 left at the end of the month, that is a lot,” he said.

“And he cannot defend himself, so we are looking for someone.”

On Twitter, the day after Mabuza and Sikhakhane withdrew, public interest lawyer Richard Spoor offered, on Twitter, to defend Zuma without raising a fee. 

A few of Spoor’s 25 000 followers incorrectly interpreted the proposal as facetious.

Spoor told the Mail & Guardian it was not only important that the trial proceeds at long last, but also that it was seen as fair, to which Zuma’s right to have legal representation and for his lawyers to have time to prepare was integral.

Spoor was surprised, given their political differences, to receive a call from Zuma’s office recently to ascertain if the offer was sincere.

[/membership]