Lawyers for African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma on Monday filed papers at the Pietermaritzburg High Court arguing that his corruption trial should be dropped.
Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley, said the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has been sent copies of the document and that the matter is expected to be heard in the Pietermaritzburg court on August 4 and 5. This will be ahead of the start of his corruption trial on August 14.
Zuma is seeking an order declaring that the NPA’s decision to prosecute him is invalid and should be set aside.
”Should the present application not result in a positive outcome in respect of a re-appraisal of the decision to prosecute, a permanent stay application will be brought in which these issues and the impact on my fair-trial rights will be addressed in detail,” reads the document.
Should this become necessary, Zuma’s lawyers will ”vigorously” attack that section of his indictment relating to alleged violations of the Income Tax Act.
”These charges typify the improper ‘convict Zuma at all costs leitmotif’ which permeates the NPA’s prosecution of myself.”
Zuma contends that the decision to prosecute him, announced shortly after the ANC’s national conference in Polokwane in December 2007, constitutes a review of and reversal of a 2003 decision not to do so.
He said he has not been given the opportunity to make representations as to whether the 2003 decision should be reviewed.
”This is a clear and, I submit, conscious and deliberate negation of the constitutional prerequisites of calling for representations, considering these if provided and then making an informed decision whether to reverse the earlier decision and institute a prosecution or not.”
In August 2003, then-national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka said that while there was a prima facie case of corruption against Zuma, the NPA had decided not to prosecute him because it was not sure that its prospects of success were strong enough to win the case.
Alternatively, Zuma will argue that the failure to invite representations from him prior to December 2007 is unlawful, unreasonable or procedurally unfair within the parameters of Section 33 of the Constitution.
Unfit
Democratic Alliance (DA) leader Helen Zille, meanwhile, last week said that Zuma’s vague statements on issues of national importance have rendered him unfit to be the country’s leader.
Presenting the DA’s ten questions addressed to Zuma to the media in Cape Town, Zille said the ANC leader had failed to clearly articulate his views on a number of important subjects.
”It was exactly six months ago yesterday [Wednesday] that Jacob Zuma was elected ANC president, but there remain major question marks over his views on key issues of national importance.
”These include the arms deal, the disbanding of the Scorpions, labour legislation, the independence of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, HIV/Aids and the supremacy of the Constitution,” she said.
In many instances where Zuma had pronounced his views clearly, his opinions appeared to be at odds with the country’s Constitution.
”It is clear, however, that they are not befitting of the potential president of South Africa,” Zille said.
Describing Zuma’s statements as ”equivocal at best and unconstitutional at worse”, the DA leader challenged Zuma to clarify a number of statements he had made since his election in Polokwane.
”You have on at least three occasions stated that the ANC rules by divine right and implied that the opposition is illegitimate.
”Will you publicly acknowledge that all political parties are equally legitimate before the law and that the results of any free and fair elections must be accepted by all parties?” Zille asked. — Sapa