African National Congress deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint are to appeal against the Durban High Court’s decision to allow prosecutors to ask authorities in Mauritius to release documents about meetings believed to relate to arms-deal corruption.
Speaking on Monday afternoon shortly after Judge Phillip Levensohn handed down his decision in the Durban High Court, Zuma’s attorney, Michael Hulley, said Zuma will lodge an application for leave to appeal against the decision within the next week.
Levensohn had granted the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) request for a letter asking Mauritian authorities to hand over documents pertaining to alleged meetings between Zuma, convicted businessman Schabir Shaik and French arms manufacturer Thint.
Hulley said Zuma was ”disappointed” with Levensohn’s decision.
He said it ”would be improper and premature” to indicate which points of Levensohn’s ruling would be contested in an appeal.
Zuma’s legal team has 14 days to lodge the application for leave to appeal and Hulley indicated this would be done next week.
Should Levensohn reject this, Zuma may petition the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.
Ajay Sooklal, the attorney for Thint, also confirmed that the company would lodge an appeal.
Sooklal said: ”We are of the view that the judgement merits an appeal.”
He, too, would not be drawn on which points of Levensohn’s ruling were contestable. He said Thint would lodge its appeal within the ”next 15 working days”.
The documents that the state seeks from Mauritius include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, the former chief executive of Thales International’s South African subsidiary, Thint, which reportedly details a meeting in March 2000 between him, Zuma and Shaik. The NPA alleges that an agreement on a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma was reached at this meeting.
Shaik claimed at his trial that the meeting concerned not a bribe but a request for a donation to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust, a version flatly rejected by Judge Hilary Squires in convicting Shaik.
In his judgement, 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.
Shaik subsequently lost his appeal while the challenge to the raids is due to be heard later this year.
”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’s 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.” — Sapa