Jacob Zuma will have to provide hard evidence of a political conspiracy against him if he wants his corruption trial dismissed, the state said in heads of argument filed in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
Rejecting Zuma’s claim in his replying affidavit that ”conspiracies are by their nature designed to offer as little evidence as possible of their existence”, the state argued that ”if the first accused [Zuma] wishes to establish that a political conspiracy exists, he is required to adduce evidence to this effect”.
The heads of argument, prepared by advocate Wim Trengove, noted that ”political conspiracy theories have now been all but abandoned” in Zuma’s heads of argument, filed on Monday.
It said the only references to conspiracy theories raised in Zuma’s heads of argument were the statement by former director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka that there was prima facie evidence of corruption against him, and the fact that he was not charged in the Schabir Shaik trial.
Zuma has said that he could have cleared his name if he had been tried with Shaik.
The state rejected the bid by Zuma’s co-accused, the two Thint (formerly Thomson-CSF) companies, to have the case thrown out of court.
In its heads of argument Thint said the state had left the impression that Thint would not be charged again if its former executive Alain Thetard provided an affidavit admitting that he was the author of the now famous ”encrypted fax”.
The fax detailed a meeting at which Shaik allegedly negotiated a R500 000 a year bribe for Zuma from Thomson-CSF. This was allegedly in exchange for protection during investigations into alleged irregularities in South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal.
The affidavit was provided and charges against Thint were withdrawn.
The state countered that expectations of permanent indemnity were not true because Thint had appointed counsel to observe proceedings at Shaik’s trial. Pierre Moynot of Thint had admitted that there was no expectation of permanent indemnity against prosecution.
The two Thint companies are subsidiaries of French arms manufacturer Thales International.
Described as ”the battle plan”, heads of argument are prepared by legal teams to set out their arguments in a clear and convincing way. Heads of argument generally indicate the name and number of the case, a description of the parties, the background facts, the legal questions that arise, the applicable law and a conclusion.
Zuma’s defence team and that of his co-accused filed their heads of argument on Monday.
Zuma is expected to appear in court next Tuesday when he and Thint seek a permanent stay of prosecution. The state is seeking to have the case postponed until early next year. — Sapa