Did Zuma rape Khwezi?

2006-04-26 07:59

Katrien Smit

Cape Town - When closing arguments are heard in the rape case against Jacob Zuma on Wednesday, there will be only one question to be answered to determine his guilt: did he have the intent to rape Khwezi?

Legal experts were of the opinion that the argument of the state's legal team, under the leadership of Charin de Beer, would have to prove above reasonable doubt that Zuma had the intention to do so.

The defence's legal team, under the leadership of Kemp J Kemp SC, will on the other hand, have to prove through their argument that Zuma's version of what had happened on the evening of the alleged rape was "reasonably possibly true".

"The accused does not have to prove his innocence, the state must prove that he is guilty. The accused doesn't have to prove anything, which makes it so difficult to prove above reasonable doubt.

"The defence only wants the court to accept their version as reasonably possibly true. If that happens, he cannot be found guilty", said Prof Dawie de Villiers, a specialist in law of evidence at the Univiersity of Johannesburg.

Many contradictions

"The closing arguments are more about how much value the court should attach to testimony. Both sides (the state and the defence) were allowed a lot of leeway and there were a lot of contradictions in the testimony on both sides: the question remains how much value the court is going to attach to the different versions."

Prof Jolandi le Roux, a lecturer in criminal law at the University of Pretoria, said Zuma's legal team had used the obvious argument in a rape case by stating that Zuma was not aware of it that Khwezi had actually not consented to have sex.

She said the term "extrajudicial knowledge" would be raised during the closing arguments.

"This term means that the accused knew during the deed that he was acting extrajudicially. The state will have to prove this to the court above reasonable doubt if they want a guilty verdict."

She said the defence would want to convince the court that it was not Zuma's intent to rape, but this argument could be problematic for the defence, as they did not question the "surrounding" evidence set by the state by means of their own witnesses.

"The only way to prove intent (if the accused denied it), would be through the surrounding evidence, such as Zuma's actions after the incident. The state put forward such testimony - if the defence fails to prove something to the contrary, the court might find that intent did exist."

- Beeld