Jacob Zuma’s lawyer could ask that testimony by a top Gauteng police detective be declared inadmissible after he admitted to not following basic police procedure, the Johannesburg High Court heard on Wednesday.
This comes after Commissioner Norman Taioe, provincial head of detective services, conceded he had not read Zuma his rights when he visited the house where the alleged rape took place. He also omitted from his statement a potentially crucial exchange about the location of the alleged rape.
He did not complete the necessary form containing this information after the visit to the Johannesburg house, and it was not in his report. It was in his consulting notes, which he brought to court on Wednesday.
Displaying his trademark persistence, Zuma’s lawyer Kemp J Kemp said according to police procedure, there is a form that has to be completed every time a suspect is questioned.
Kemp accused Taioe of trying to trap Zuma by arriving at the house and asking him to point out the ”alleged crime scene”.
The woman who has accused Zuma of raping her on November 2 last year has told the court it took place in the guest room, while Kemp says that Zuma will say they had consensual sex in his bedroom.
Kemp asked if Taioe had expected Zuma to point anything out to him on that day, and whether he was aware of the requirements for admissible pointing out, and the procedures and safeguards relating to this.
Taioe said it was not necessary for him to warn Zuma as the former deputy president was accompanied by his lawyer Michael Hulley throughout.
”His lawyer should have advised him what to say to us, where to show us,” said Taioe.
Kemp asked why Taioe did not just ask where the guest room was, where the complainant had slept. Taioe said it was his prerogative to pose questions as he chose.
He told the court it ”slipped my mind” not to add into the official record that Zuma had pointed out the alleged crime scene when asked to do so.
Taioe also insisted that he believed that the warning Zuma had received at a previous consultation with police at Nkandla, in KwaZulu-Natal, was still valid at the Johannesburg visit.
Kemp put it to Taioe that events did not happen as he had testified and Hulley would testify that he never asked for the alleged crime scene.
”That is exactly why there are standing instructions of writing down statements. Until today there is no record of this,” Kemp said.
He said it is ”highly improbable” that the commissioner failed to add the exchange in his statement, especially because he has more than 30 years experience.
Taioe admitted he is pro-Zuma but said he does not demonstrate this in any way.
Kemp told Judge Willem van der Merwe he might argue at the end of the trial for the witness’ testimony to be ruled inadmissible. Van der Merwe agreed with this.
Withdrawing the charge
Yusuf Dockrat, an attorney who advised the complainant, testified in the afternoon that she did not ask him to help her withdraw the charge.
Dockrat testified that her mother raised withdrawing the charge in a meeting at a coffee shop in Kensington in Johannesburg on November 15.
He explained to her that even if the charge were withdrawn, the state could still go ahead with Zuma’s prosecution.
Dockrat said the complainant had appeared upset and tense at the meeting.
The consultation was paid for by KwaZulu-Natal finance minister Zweli Mkhize, who described himself as a family friend. He had told Dockrat the woman needed legal advice.
At the end of the meeting, Dockrat told the woman he would contact Mkhize and tell him he had nothing to report except that the complainant would make up her own mind.
Dockrat told the court that before the meeting, after being contacted by an attorney colleague with a request to attend to the matter, he met former journalist Ranjeni Munusamy after four phone calls between them.
She introduced herself as being from the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust.
”She said there is some uncertainty about an allegation of rape and in any event the complainant in this matter would contact me in the day to consult with me and obtain advice.
”She [Munusamy] was concerned about the allegations and was hopeful that it would amount to naught,” Dockrat said.
Munusamy remained in contact with Dockrat before the November 15 meeting. Afterwards, she phoned to ask him if there had been any developments.
He said that after further calls from Munusamy asking if there was news, he contacted the attorney to tell him about the calls.
He said it would be ethically wrong to tell a third party about a consultation with a client, and that the attorney should see that Munusamy’s conduct was addressed.
Phone records
The court was also presented with a complex account of the phone records of the main parties involved in the case.
The records included those of Zuma, the complainant, her mother, Mkhize, the complainant’s best friend, Dockrat and Munusamy.
Nine calls were made on November 9 from Zuma’s phone to the complainant. She has testified that after the alleged rape Zuma tried to set up a meeting with her.
Before the alleged rape there were 54 SMSs from the complainant to Zuma from the beginning of September to November 2. There were five phone contacts from Zuma to the complainant before November 2.
In the early hours of November 3, a number of contacts were made from the complainant’s phone.
The trial resumes on Thursday. — Sapa