A man who wants to be president, a former president and the country’s top prosecutors will face off in a high-stakes legal battle in Bloemfontein on Friday.
While the argument that will be heard and the evidence that has been submitted is in all likelihood not expected to hold anything different from that which has already been heard in Pietermaritzburg High Court, few poker games — if any — have carried the stakes that five of the country’s Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judges will have to rule on.
African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma, the man who would be the next president of the country, believes he had a legitimate right to be heard before the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) charged him last year on racketeering, money-laundering, corruption and fraud relating to a multibillion-rand government arms deal.
Zuma was charged in 2005, but that case was struck from the roll in 2006. He was recharged in December 2007 and on September 12 was vindicated by Judge Chris Nicholson.
But it was Nicholson’s judgement that set the proverbial cat among the pigeons.
Within days, then-president Thabo Mbeki had lost his job — which he contends was because of Nicholson’s inferences of political meddling in the charging of Zuma.
It is Nicholson’s judgement that the five SCA judges, led by acting Deputy Judge President Louis Harms, will analyse.
They will decide whether Nicholson’s September 12 ruling was correct.
The court has agreed to give Mbeki 45 minutes to argue why he should be allowed to intervene in the battle between the NPA and Zuma, or be admitted to the legal fray as a friend of the court.
The NPA and Zuma’s legal team will each have two hours to present their arguments.
Zuma’s team is defending the Nicholson judgement and hold that he did indeed consider whether the facts and circumstances testified to (of political influences) displayed some merit.
”It [the judgement] carefully considered the circumstances and decided that there appeared to be merit in the respondent’s [Zuma’s] averments of political interference in his prosecution.”
Zuma contends the high court’s findings on the issue were that the allegations could not be struck.
Zuma argues that the NDPP, in terms of Section 179(5)(d) of the Constitution, was obliged to offer him an opportunity to make representations.
Mbeki wants to be allowed to challenge the Nicholson’s inferences of political interference against him, which he claims led the ANC to recall him from his position as president of the country.
When Nicholson handed down his judgement at the Pietermaritzburg High Court, a crowd of Zuma supporters almost 10 000-strong filled Freedom Square.
The ANC in the Free State has promised to do the same, saying that thousands of members would again attend court proceedings involving Zuma.
Free State ANC spokesperson Teboho Sikisi said the party had applied for permission to hold a rally in front of the court on Friday.
”… Something along the lines of what happened during the last court appearance,” he said.
Sikisi said all the national leaders of the alliance partners would be to be at the court to support Zuma.
Senior justice officials confirmed that Zuma would attend the proceedings, but by late on Wednesday it was still not known whether Mbeki would be attending.
Security is expected to be tight and hordes of journalists will descend on the court building.
After the five hours of debate are up, the five judges will retire to their chambers, and at some stage in the future their judgement on whether Zuma should stand trial or not will be issued.
With the festive season fast approaching, few expect a ruling this year.
In all probability, Zuma will have to wait until next year to hear whether he is free of the allegations of fraud, corruption and money laundering hovering over his ambitions to be the country’s next president.
Whatever ruling is made, it will neither prove Zuma’s innocence or his guilt — it will simply determine whether he was charged in line with the provisions of the Constitution. — Sapa