Top prosecutor Bulelani Ngcuka spoke in riddles when explaining his decision not to prosecute Deputy President Jacob Zuma, a legal expert said on Monday.
“It’s extremely odd, something I have not heard of before,” said Hans Visser, an expert in private law and defamation at the University of Pretoria.
He said Ngcuka’s remarks did not explain why Zuma was not being taken to court for his alleged role in South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal.
The director of public prosecutions said on Saturday: “We have concluded that, whilst there is a prima facie case of corruption against the deputy president, our prospects of success are not strong enough.
“That means that we are not sure if we have a winnable case. Accordingly, we have decided not prosecute the deputy president.”
Visser said Ngcuka’s remarks amounted to a glaring contradiction.
“What did he foresee could arise in a court case to upset his prima facie evidence? And if he was aware of such factors, how could he claim to have prima facie evidence?” asked Visser.
“If a prosecutor has genuine prima facie evidence, he goes to court. If his evidence would not stand up in court, it is not of a prima facie quality.”
Visser said the Ngcuka-Zuma issue was a fascinating case from a legal point of view. Strong arguments could be put forward on both sides.
Zuma possibly had sufficient grounds to sue Ngcuka for defamation.
“If I had to advise the deputy president, I would say Ngcuka’s defence had been weakened by the contradictory nature of his remarks,” Visser said.
“On behalf of the deputy president, I would argue that Ngcuka made up the part of the prima facie evidence as a last salvo to bring Zuma’s integrity into question.”
If he were to act for Ngcuka, Visser said, he would submit the investigation against Zuma had been a subject of media reports for many months.
“I would argue that Ngcuka had no choice but to give a public explanation for the move not to prosecute the deputy president after months of investigation.”
Visser said the main defence against a slander suit was that the offensive remarks were truthful and in the public interest.
Criteria for what constituted the truth had been somewhat relaxed when it came to the political arena.
Ngcuka would have to prove that his actions were reasonable and without malice, Visser said.
He said he doubted Zuma would go so far as to institute a suit against Ngcuka.
“If he wants to stay on as deputy president, it would probably be better for him to let this matter die down as soon as possible.”
A drawn-out case, closely followed by the media, would only serve to keep the matter alive in the public mind.
“Pushing ahead with such an action months ahead of a general election would probably a strategic mistake by the deputy president,” Visser said.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Alliance has asked the Ethics Committee to investigate whether Deputy President Jacob Zuma failed to declare certain benefits.
Weekend media reports claimed that Zuma had received benefits from businessman Schabir Shaik in excess of R500 000.
DA chief whip Douglas Gibson said on Monday there was no record of such benefits in the Register of Members’ Interests. Gibson has written to the Registrar of Members’ Interests, requesting that the Ethics Committee launch the appropriate
investigation. National Assembly Speaker Dr Frene Ginwala said she had not, by late on Monday, received a referral from the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) regarding the alleged gifts.
If the matter was referred to Parliament it would, as a matter of course, be passed onto the ethics committee.
“We should deal with this as we should deal with any other ethics case,” she said. – Sapa
Scorpions to report on Zuma’s gifts
UDM joins call for Zuma to go
Show me the money: Zuma