Judge gives Zuma tongue-lashing

2006-05-08 16:55

Johannesburg - Jacob Zuma was acquitted of rape in Johannesburg High Court on Monday - but not before coming in for a tongue-lashing by Judge Willem van der Merwe.

He told Zuma in his judgment it was "totally unacceptable" for a man to have unprotected sex with a woman who was not his regular partner, especially knowing she was HIV-positive.

"Had Rudyard Kipling known of this case at the time he wrote his poem, If, he might have added the following: 'And, if you can control your body and your sexual urges, then you are a man, my son'."

He also said "he would not even comment" on Zuma's evidence that he had had a shower after the intercourse to lessen his chances of contracting the virus.

Judge Van der Merwe said Zuma's evidence as a whole could be believed as it was reasonably true.

The trial was unique, with unique features, and should not be regarded as discouragement to women who had been raped, he said.

Although it was clear from the evidence a false accusation of rape was made, it had to be asked why the 31-year-old woman had gone through the trauma of the trial if she had not been raped.

Experienced previous trauma

For this, her history had to be looked at, and this included a history of falsely accusing men of rape.

When she was confronted with these allegations, she denied knowing the men or, in some instances, denied the accusations.

This, Judge Van der Merwe said, was because she could not admit that she had previously made false rape claims because then she would be found out.

He said it was clear she had experienced previous trauma. After having sex she might have felt guilty and ashamed and that was why she accused Zuma of rape.

Evidence had been given that the woman was mentally ill.

Judge Van der Merwe accepted the evidence of a number of church people who said the woman also had accused them of rape or attempted rape.

He said there was no reason for all of them to have conspired against her.

A clear breach of rights

The judge rejected the evidence of two policemen, saying he was not impressed by them and could therefore not accept their version.

Commissioner Norman Taioe, head of Gauteng's detective services, and superintendent Peter Linda, the investigating officer, testified that Zuma had pointed out the guest bedroom in his Johannesburg home when asked to show them the "alleged scene of the crime".

They also testified when Zuma was asked what happened in his bedroom, he replied "nothing".

Judge Van der Merwe said there had been a clear breach of Zuma's constitutional rights in the way police had treated him.

He also rejected the testimony of trauma specialist Merle Friedman, who was called by the State, saying she had not made full inquiries into the woman's past.

She also had not used psychometric tests available to her to make a sound judgment of the woman's character.

It would have been foolish for a man to start raping a sleeping woman if he did not know whether she would scream when she woke up.

Zuma denied 'deep relationship'

Judge Van der Merwe found it difficult to believe the State's version that Zuma had raped the complainant when she failed to respond to sexual overtures.

"Why would a man be so foolish to start raping a sleeping woman if he did not know whether she would scream her head off?" he asked.

"Especially with a uniformed policeman and his daughter nearby."

He said the complainant had tried to convince the court that she had a "deep, father-daughter relationship" with Zuma. Zuma denied this.

According to evidence, there were long periods when she did not see Zuma nor have any contact with him.

She had also tried to convince the court that she was a close friend of one of Zuma's daughters. This could only have been Duduzile.

But, Duduzile had testified she was "irritated" when she saw the alleged victim because she thought she was only at her father's house to ask for money.

The complainant also did not recognise Duduzile when she first saw her.

Woman cannot be identified

Judge Van der Merwe was not prepared to accept the complainant's version of the relationship between her and Zuma.

He said both Zuma and the complainant's versions of what happened before and after the alleged rape were the same.

Van der Merwe made an order that the woman's identity could not be revealed without her and the Gauteng director of public prosecution's written permission.

He also ordered the woman's kanga (wrap) be returned to her as she had asked for it while giving evidence.

- SAPA