Zuma bid 'pointless'

2008-08-04 16:39

Pietermaritzburg - ANC leader Jacob Zuma asked a court on Monday to scrap a long-running graft case against him, a bid the state described as pointless.

Lawyers for Zuma told the Pietermaritzburg High Court that he was not consulted when the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) made an about-turn in its original decision not to prosecute him.

But state advocate Wim Trengove said Zuma's bid to have the decision to prosecute him declared unlawful, was "with respect, beside the point".

Zuma faces a charge of racketeering, four charges of corruption, a charge of money laundering and 12 charges of fraud related to the multi-billion rand arms deal.

Support for Zuma outside the court got off to a slow start in the morning, but by late afternoon the group of supporters had swelled to several thousand.

Some 300 Communist Party members blocked two lanes of traffic near the court and were directed back by the police into the closed-off road in front of the court.

Criminal trial

Trengove told Judge Chris Nicholson that a decision to prosecute set off a series of events, including the accused's right to self-defence.

Disputes over the decision to prosecute should be decided in a criminal trial and not in a separate action, added Trengove.

"It (the decision to prosecute) is merely a decision to trigger a hearing," said Trengove.

He said the application brought by Zuma did not mean that he was innocent.

"What it (the application) says, is that, 'I should not be put on trial because the decision was unfair'."

Trengove said the ultimate examination of the rights would take place during the criminal trial.

Earlier, Zuma's lawyer, Kemp J Kemp, presented arguments around the interpretation of section 179(5)(d) of the Constitution.

Representations

Zuma is claiming that the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) was obliged in terms of that section to give him the opportunity to make representations before it decided to prosecute him in 2005 and 2007.

Normally, an accused would not have a right to make representations at the decision to prosecute, but Zuma argued that in the case of a reversal of a decision, the Constitution stated that he did have such a right.

Zuma is claiming that the decision to prosecute him was a reversal of a decision taken by the former NDPP, Bulelani Ngcuka. He announced in August 2003 that the National Prosecuting Authority would not prosecute Zuma, because it did not believe that it had a "winnable case".

But after Zuma's financial advisor, Schabir Shaik, was found guilty of corruption in 2005, the state decided to charge Zuma after all.

Companies' case postponed

The two South African subsidiaries of French arms manufacturer Thales International (formerly known as Thomson-CFS) - Thint Holdings (Southern Africa) Pty Ltd and Thint (Pty) Ltd - are co-accused and each face a charge of racketeering and two counts of corruption. Their case has been postponed until December 8.

Zuma further allegedly agreed to protect Thint Holdings (Thomson-CSF Holdings) from an investigation into alleged corruption in the arms deal, in return for a R500 000 a year bribe.

So far, Zuma has been mostly unsuccessful in attempts to block the state's case.

Last week, a Constitutional Court challenge by Zuma failed. He contested the lawfulness of search and seizure operations by the state.

- SAPA