The prosecution in the Jacob Zuma trial has gone on the offensive in a powerful bid to regain the initiative, not only in the courtroom but also in the propaganda war on the streets.
When Judge Herbert Msimang gave the state just two weeks to respond to a massive petition by Zuma and French defence company Thint to have the case dismissed, prosecutors appeared staggered.
However, on Monday the state met the tight deadline and delivered a stinging rebuttal, countering the claim of unreasonable delays and allegations of a conspiracy against Zuma.
Zuma’s affidavit in support of his bid for charges to be withdrawn had attempted to put the prosecution on the defensive and also implicate other powerful players who might balk at the prospect of being dragged into the legal fray — including President Thabo Mbeki, National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli, former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka and former justice minister Penuell Maduna.
Mbeki has not responded, but he is well served by Pikoli, Ngcuka and Maduna, whose rebuttals are delivered in surprisingly robust terms.
Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy sets out in great detail the genesis of the state’s case against Zuma to show that he was not ”targeted” for investigation and that the delays in bringing him to trial were not unreasonable.
All respond to what they call ”a theme that resonates” throughout Zuma’s affidavit: the claim that the charges against him were initiated and fuelled by a political conspiracy to remove him as a role player in the African National Congress.
Says Pikoli: ”I reject these allegations in unequivocal terms. I note that Accused No 1 has put up no facts upon which such serious accusations could reasonably have been founded, but has chosen instead to rely on rumours, press reports, speculation and innuendo. I am advised that these accusations are scurrilous and unfounded, and that they appear to be part of a concerted publicity campaign.”
Ngcuka and Maduna place on record similar sentiments, while McCarthy notes: ”Most of the complaints made by all three of the accused are in essence complaints, not so much about the manner in which their prosecution has been conducted, but about the fact that they are being prosecuted at all. They suggest that there is no bona fide cause for their prosecution and that it is being done in bad faith and for ulterior purposes. But nothing can be further from the truth.”
McCarthy points out that the investigations, which have led to Zuma being charged, were not initiated by the national prosecuting authority, but by allegations made by Patricia de Lille and, later, a mandate by Parliament following initial probes into the arms deal by the auditor general and the public accounts committee, Scopa.
”The mandate required an examination of, among other things, the records of the relevant Thomson-CSF companies [now Thint],” says McCarthy.
It was in those records that investigators discovered a reference to a report of bribery involving a senior government minister relating to the corvettes in the arms deal.
This led the directorate of special operations (Scorpions) to interview Thomson-CSF’s auditors, who revealed that they had received a report on possible bribery by Thomson’s local boss, Alain ThÃ