Jacob Zuma supporters might hope that Judge Herbert Msimang will throw his case out of the Pietermaritzburg High Court Wednesday, but they are more likely to be disappointed.
The truth is that Msimang’s ruling only determines whether the state gets a postponement and for how long. The case stays before the courts.
The state has said it will have a final indictment ready by October 15 and that is when it will be ready to proceed. It has suggested that the case start in all earnest early next year.
Another truth is that if Msimang decides not to grant the state’s postponement, the question will be whether it would be ready proceed. And in fact, would Zuma’s legal team be ready to defend?
While members of both legal teams and that of Zuma’s co-accused are keeping their cards close to their chest, none are in all probability ready to proceed.
Zuma is accused of having accepted a R500 000-a-year bribe from Thint in exchange for protection from a probe into South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal. The two Thint companies, which are co-accused with Zuma, are the South African subsidiaries of the French arms manufacturing giant Thales International.
If Msimang said the case should proceed immediately, the chances would be great that the state would withdraw its case and file a new indictment on October 15 when it would be ready to proceed in any event.
It would be back to the drawing board and Msimang might not be the judge trying the case in that instance.
Msimang could also elect to strike it from the roll and that could result in an appeal from the state — another whole legal battle on its own.
However, this is unlikely. One lawyer following the case closely, but who chose to remain anonymous, said he believed Msimang would grant a postponement but with a strict timetable, keeping both the state and the accused under pressure.
Then there is the question of when the defence for Thint and Zuma would seek their permanent stay of prosecution.
During three days of argument earlier this month, the state said that it would prefer to have appeals over its search-and-seizure raids wrapped up before it proceeded with the case.
Its October 15 indictment depends on the evidence gathered during those raids. The National Prosecuting Authority was ordered to return documents it seized in August 2005 from Zuma, his lawyer Michael Hulley and lawyer Julie Mahomed.
Mohamed successfully challenged the raids as did Hulley and Zuma. However, the state has appealed the rulings.
During argument on September 6, it was argued that the state was twice in contempt of court for using the documents as part of the annexures for the 500-page forensic audit.
However, state prosecutor Billy Downer said that the state’s appeals against court orders forcing it to return the documents meant that ”operation and execution shall be suspended”.
Schabir Shaik’s appeal against his conviction for having a corrupt relationship with Zuma is set to be heard later this month and that could have a bearing on the state’s amended indictment.
When Zuma emerged from the Pietermaritzburg High Court on September 7 after three days of legal battle between the state and the defence, he said: ”This time we will hear from the real judge, not those people we meet on the streets who make decisions.”
What ever Msimang decides, nobody is likely to be totally happy.
Thousands are expected to gather in Pietermaritzburg’s Freedom Square from Tuesday night when a night vigil will be held. During Zuma’s last appearance the crowd varied between 4 000 and 12 000.
Police spokesperson Director Bala Naidoo said on Monday the police would be in control no matter how supporters felt about Msimang’s ruling.
Pietermaritzburg’s hotels near the city centre are fully booked. — Sapa