Durban - Witnesses who testified in Major-General Bethuel Mondli Zuma’s drunk driving case had tailored their evidence because they found out they were dealing with a “high-profile” person, his attorney argued in the Pietermaritzburg District Court on Tuesday.
Zuma’s name was thrust into the limelight in August when he was appointed as Gauteng’s provincial police commissioner, but hours later the position was withdrawn when the details of the case against him emerged.
He is charged with drunk driving, escaping from custody, defeating the ends of justice and failing to comply with the instructions of a traffic officer on December 19, 2008, when he was working in Pietermaritzburg.
Attorney Sergie Brimiah applied for Zuma’s discharge. He argued his client had done nothing wrong by not stopping when flagged down by a traffic officer just before midnight, considering crimes by bogus officers.
Also, that a proper alcohol test, which would have held up in court, had not been done and that there were numerous contradictions in the witnesses’ evidence.
Magistrate Reard Abrahams is to deliver judgment in the discharge application next week. If it falls in Zuma’s favour, it means he will be a free man. If not, Zuma could choose to testify in his defence or close his case. Final argument will then take place.
Brimiah argued there was no evidence to suggest Zuma’s driving had been impaired and that he had “zigzagged” while driving.
He also referred to the discrepancies in the evidence of different witnesses who had testified, saying when they were probed during cross-examination they could not remember. “The witnesses were very evasive and contradicted each other materially.”
Brimiah said the first question traffic officers should have asked Zuma was why he had not stopped.
State prosecutor Kwazi Zimu said the court had to look at the evidence, that Zuma had been directed to stop by officers in full uniform, but did not.
He was then chased by marked traffic vehicles with sirens and blue lights on, which he must have seen.
Blood tests were not done because Zuma took too long to come out of the house were he was allegedly hiding, added Zimu.
If the witnesses wanted to fabricate a story, why would they have said they did not know who the driver of the vehicle was? They also admitted that, during the chase, they lost him and then found the car parked outside the house.
Considering how long ago the incident happened, it would be accepted that the witnesses could not remember all the details.
He added that, at this stage, the magistrate should not question the credibility of the witnesses.
The Mercury