|
Pikoli spurns Zuma 'plot' claim
21/02/2008 21:25 - (SA)
Durban - Suspended Scorpions boss Vusi Pikoli rejected on Thursday claims that he and President Thabo Mbeki had conspired against African National Congress leader Jacob Zuma.
A statement issued by Pikoli's attorneys, Deneys Reitz, said he was "surprised to read news reports of an affidavit by Mr Zuma in Mauritian Court proceedings alleging that he (Pikoli) conspired with President Mbeki to exclude Mr Zuma from any meaningful political role".
While admitting that Pikoli had not read Zuma's affidavit, which was reported to have been served on the Mauritius attorney-general earlier this week, the attorneys said: "Our client denies any such conspiracy.
"Prosecutors have a statutory duty to prosecute without fear or favour. In accordance with those obligations and after having considered the judgment in the Shaik case and the evidence, advocate Pikoli consulted with his colleagues in the NPA and the decision was taken to prosecute Mr Zuma.
"This decision was made independently of the executive as required by the constitution."
The Mercury newspaper reported on Thursday morning that Zuma had claimed in his affidavit that Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla wanted Pikoli axed because he had "acted improperly in commissioning known apartheid operatives in a search-and-seizure at my residence".
Waiting on Ginwala report
It also cited Zuma as saying in his affidavit that the minister wanted Pikoli axed because "he (Pikoli) commissioned a report which investigated my interaction with African leaders and whether I posed any threat to the security of the state."
Pikoli denied both allegations.
The Pikoli statement said: "Neither the minister nor the government has purported to base the decision to suspend our client on the search at Mr Zuma's residence or on his having commissioned such report.
"In due course, it is hoped that Dr Ginwala will make the State's submissions available to the public and, once she does, it will become clear that the alleged complaints referred to above do not form part of the State's case against our client."
|
News
