Zuma judge slams TV 'nonsense'
2006-03-27 14:13
Johannesburg - Judge Willem van der Merwe commented on Monday on public opinion about his decision to allow the Zuma defence team to cross-examine the complainant on her sexual history.
"Unfortunately many people have lots to say about the reason for allowing the cross-examination... where I clearly (said) that the reasons will follow later."
Van der Merwe also remarked in court that a television programme he had watched on Sunday claimed that she had not been given the opportunity to tell her whole story in evidence.
"Everybody is talking about that... what utter nonsense!" he said.
Jacob Zuma's rape trial was adjourned for the judge to ponder an eleventh hour Friends of the Court application by three non-governmental organisations.
Three groups - the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and the Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre - made an application to present further information after the state had rested its case.
They wanted to present evidence which included the impact of rape and repeated abuse, which they believed had not been covered by the state's evidence.
Opposed the application
Both the State and Zuma's legal team opposed the application.
The State argued that the application could be seen as "gross interference by an outside party" and that the evidence would not add anything new.
It was unheard of to allow an Amici Curiae at this stage of the proceeding and it would be a gross departure from criminal procedure, State prosecutor Charin de Beer said.
"If we allow this group today, who is there tomorrow?"
Zuma's lawyer Kemp J Kemp said that granting the application would lead to at least a three-week delay in proceedings so that Zuma's legal team could prepare.
He also cautioned that further cross-examination may be necessary and this could include the complainant herself.
The woman is alleged to have been raped by Zuma on November 2 last year.
Judge Willem van der Merwe adjourned proceedings so that he could decide on the matter.
He said court would resume at 14:00 at which time he would announce his ruling, or make a further adjournment if he had not yet come to a decision.
- SAPA