Zuma trial stalls in legal mire
2006-09-06 19:11
Pietermaritzburg - Jacob Zuma's lawyer rejected on Wednesday the State's invitation to allow Pietermaritzburg High Court to decide whether documents taken in search-and-seizure raid were admissible as evidence.
Advocate Kemp J Kemp told Judge Herbert Msimang that he would not be "accepting my learned friend's offer".
Kemp's statement was made shortly after advocate Nirmal Singh told the court that the trial could not continue until appeals concerning the raids, carried out by the Scorpions last year, had been resolved.
Singh and advocate Kessie Naidu, represent Zuma's co-accused, French arms company Thint.
Singh said: "It is my submission it (the State) is in contempt of a court order."
It had emerged earlier that a 500-page KPMG forensic report contained documents taken in search-and-seizure raids on the former deputy president's homes and the offices of his lawyer last August. The State had been ordered to return the documents.
'Double contempt of court'
Two of the raids were declared unlawful whereas the raid against Thint was declared lawful.
The court rulings on the raids had gone on appeal and these challenges were cited as one of the reasons the State needed a postponement.
Singh said the fact that the national prosecuting authority had handed the documents to a third party, KPMG, was "double contempt".
Singh said: "The State acted unlawfully. That is the real cause of the delay."
Naidu said if the State applied for an adjournment, how could it expect the defence to give an indication of when they would be ready, when they had no final indictment.
"This is putting the trailer before the bus," said Naidu.
Schabir Shaik appeal
The State earlier said it would have a final indictment ready by October 15.
Naidu said: "How can the State give an indictment based on matters that will be decided in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)?".
He was referring to the appeal by Zuma's financial adviser Schabir Schaik against his 15-year jail sentence for corruption and fraud.
The charges against Zuma and Thint emanate from the judgment delivered in Shaik's trial.
Naidu argued that the SCA would also be giving a definition of corruption.
He said the present case would be affected by the SCA's ruling on the so-called encrypted fax and that it could not proceed.
Why State wants postponement
The fax detailed a meeting at which Shaik allegedly negotiated a R500 000 a year bribe for Zuma from Thomson CSF (now Thint).
This was allegedly in exchange for protection from investigations into South Africa's multibillion-rand arms deal.
The State has contended that the appeals against the search-and-seizure raids were the reason for the delay and its primary reason for seeking a postponement.
Kemp had earlier contended that the decision to prosecute Zuma was unconstitutional and illegal.
He said that, in terms of the constitution, the national prosecuting authority had failed to inform Zuma that it had reviewed its earlier decision not to charge him.
'Done contrary to the law'
Kemp said that when national director of public prosecutions (NDPP) head Vusi Pikoli announced his intention to review the case, he was constitutionally obliged to allow Zuma to make representations.
He said Zuma had not been given that opportunity. "It is quite clear that it was done contrary to the law. We say it was unconstitutional," said Kemp.
In response, advocate Wim Trengove SC, appearing for the State, pointed out that the legislation Kemp used in his argument applied only when the NDPP overruled a subordinate director in the national prosecuting authority.
Msimang asked why the case had been transferred to Pietermaritzburg High Court without an indictment.
State prosecutor Billy Downer said the State had not wanted the matter transferred there and would have preferred to have obtained a postponement in Durban magistrate's court.
"The State's proposal was resisted," said Downer.
He said an agreement was reached with Zuma's defence team that the matter would go to the High Court.
This was done with the understanding that the State could continue its investigations and that the indictment would be amended.
Accused of accepting bribe
Kemp shook his head as Downer explained the reasons for the case reaching the High Court without a proper indictment.
Zuma is accused of having accepted a R500 000 a year bribe from Thint in exchange for protection from a probe into South Africa's controversial arms deal.
The State is attempting to have the trial postponed, against the wishes of Zuma and Thint.
- SAPA