Determining whether African National Congress president Jacob Zuma is innocent or guilty is of the ”most pressing interest”, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said in papers lodged with the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Friday.
The NPA’s answering affidavit was in response to Zuma’s application to have its decision to prosecute him declared unconstitutional.
However, in the answering affidavit, Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) senior investigator Johan du Plooy wrote: ”I submit that the most pressing interest involved is to have the guilt or innocence of a person who aspires to the highest office of the land definitively determined in a court of law.”
He added: ”The granting of this application would only serve to delay this end.”
Zuma’s application is expected to be heard in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on August 4 and 5.
The ANC leader contends that the decision to prosecute him, announced shortly after the ANC’s national conference in Polokwane in December 2007, constituted a review and reversal of a 2003 decision not to do so.
He said he had not been given the opportunity to make representations on 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,” Zuma said.
Du Plooy said Zuma was not ”entitled to make representations before being charged. The prosecution imperative remains, namely to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice.”
Taxing matters
The NPA also said that Zuma’s recent settlement with the South African Revenue Service (Sars) did not necessarily clear him ”after years of delinquency”.
In the affidavit, Du Plooy wrote: ”I observe that the ‘regularisation’ of his tax affairs after years of delinquency does not exculpate him any more than a thief who repays the stolen money, or a shoplifter who attempts to replace the stolen goods on the shelf after he is caught.”
He pointed out that Zuma had settled with Sars ”after his indictment on the present charges”.
Zuma claimed his settlement with Sars was ”reached without any admission of criminal conduct on my part and on the basis that it disposes of and resolves all liability in respect of the said tax issues — both criminal and civil liability”.
He said that the NPA should have been aware of his discussions with Sars representatives since it had been ”prying” into his financial affairs ”and indeed resorted to spying on me using intelligence-gathering methods not authorised by any competent body”.
Du Plooy rejected the spying allegations, saying that ”we were unaware of any impending settlement of his outstanding taxes. This appears to have been a recent development.”
He said that the NPA had not received a copy of an agreement or proof of payment. — Sapa