A South African court on Monday dealt a blow to former deputy president Jacob Zuma, ruling that prosecutors may ask Mauritius to release documents which could be used in new corruption proceedings against him.
The South African Press Agency said the Durban High Court approved a bid by prosecutors to request documents that Mauritian authorities seized from a local branch of a French arms contractor and which they believe could show Zuma was involved in a bribe scheme.
Once seen as the frontrunner to succeed President Thabo Mbeki in 2009, Zuma was fired as Mbeki’s deputy after he was implicated in the corruption trial of his former financial aide, Schabir Shaik.
While Zuma was himself later charged, the government’s case collapsed last September — keeping alive his hopes for a political comeback when the ruling African National Congress (ANC) meets in December to select its new leadership.
Prosecutors have said they could file new charges against Zuma, however, and had argued that the documents in Mauritius could play an important role in the case, which stems from a arms procurement scandal in 1999.
Among the documents that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) wants is a diary in which a former head of the French firm, Thint, made a note of a meeting he allegedly had with Zuma and Shaik agreeing a bribe for Zuma.
Prosecutors have argued the diary and other documents would confirm that a bribe for Zuma was discussed and agreed.
A former hero of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, Zuma says charges against him are part of a political plot in the ANC to prevent him from becoming president.
The ANC, which is already deeply divided on the issue, is due to meet in December for its five-yearly national conference that will choose its next leader. Given the ANC’s political dominance, such a leader is guaranteed to become South Africa’s next president in 2009.
Matter should be ventilated in Mauritius
In his judgement, Judge Phillip Levensohn Levensohn rejected Zuma and Thint’s assertion that legal proceedings against them were still pending and the NPA was still bound by a March 2006 order issued by Judge Pete Combrinck that any letter of request would have to be granted by a trial judge.
During the two days of argument in March, both Zuma’s advocate Kemp J Kemp and Thint advocate Nirmal Singh had said that because the NPA refused to withdraw its case against Zuma and Thint, Combrinck’s order was still valid.
In September, Judge Herbert Msimang struck the case against Zuma and Thint from the roll, after the state had sought a postponement pending the outcome of Shaik’s appeal against his fraud and corruption conviction, and a challenge to the search and seizure raids carried out on Zuma, his attorneys and Thint.
”I reject this submission,” said Levensohn.
”In my view when a case is struck off the roll prior to plea the criminal proceedings pending are terminated.”
Levensohn also rejected Thint and Zuma’s assertion that the state was not seeking the information for use in an investigation as described in terms of the International Cooperation in Criminal Matters Act.
The defence had asserted that the original request to Mauritius for the documents in 2001 was ”legally flawed”.
Levensohn said: ”In my judgement this is a matter which should be ventilated in Mauritius before its high court. There would be much to be said for the view that the attack on the search and seizure of 2001 comes very belatedly.”
The court heard during argument in March that Thint’s parent company, Thales International, had obtained an injunction in Mauritius against the documents being released out of fear that information not relevant to Zuma’s case would be released.
”At this stage there appears to be sufficient prima facie evidence that the 2001 request was properly made and the process a lawful one,” said Levensohn.
He also rejected Zuma and Thint’s allegation that the state did ”not have clean hands” when it took copies of the documents during the search and seizure raids in Mauritius in 2001.
He said that during Shaik’s trial in 2005, Squires had accepted the copies as evidence and that therefore ”there had been no impropriety” when copies of the documents were made.
Argument that the injunction in Mauritius prevented Levensohn from issuing the letter of request was also rejected.
Levensohn’s decision follows the granting of an order in the Pretoria High Court last week, allowing the National Director of Public Prosecutions to extend its inquiries to British banks and lawyers in its investigation against Zuma and Thint.
In a statement on Monday, the NPA welcomed Levensohn’s decision.
”We are pleased that the judge has cleared the way for us to finalise this part of the investigation and will do so as soon as possible,” said the NPA.
”In addition to this we are pleased that the judge confirmed the original letter of request to the Mauritian documents was, prima facie, lawful and properly made.”
Zuma’s attorney Michael Hulley and Thint’s attorney Ajay Sooklall could not immediately be reached for comment.
A note on the Friends of Jacob Zuma website said: ”Zuma’s legal team is discussing the ruling with him to decide its course of action.” – Reuters, Sapa