Pretoria - The DA is not saying that President Jacob Zuma is guilty of corruption, but only that he – like any other person – should face criminal charges when compelling evidence of wrongdoing exists.
He, too, should be given the benefit of his day in court to challenge the allegations against him, even if he is anxious to avoid that prospect.
This is stated by the DA’s legal team, led by Sean Rosenberg SC, in heads of argument which were filed at the High Court in Pretoria on Wednesday.
The document will form the basis of the DA’s arguments before the court (at a date still to be determined) in its application for an order setting aside the decision of the acting boss of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Mokotedi Mpshe, to drop charges against Zuma.
The Zuma camp was meant to also file its heads of argument this week. His lawyers have been given an extension until June 17.
In its heads of argument, the DA stated that as the official opposition party in the country, it challenged Mpshe’s decision to discontinue the prosecution of Zuma as being “irrational and unlawful”.
It said the reasons given by Mpshe for his decision were based on factual assertions which he could not have believed to be true and which could not have led to his decision. The corruption charges were dropped shortly before Zuma was sworn in as president and shortly after the so-called spy tapes emerged. Mpshe concluded there was a political conspiracy against Zuma.
Zuma was involved in a struggle for the leadership of the ANC, against former president Thabo Mbeki, to be decided at the Polokwane conference.
According to the DA, they will prove that Mpshe decided that, to avoid any appearance of political entanglement, the service of the indictment on Zuma should be delayed until early 2008, after the Polokwane conference.
“It is clear that the postponement of the indictment suited Zuma, who was anxious to avoid appearing at the conference under the shadow of criminal charges,” the DA said.
The indictment was served on Zuma on December 28, 2007, after the Polokwane conference, and included charges of racketeering, corruption, money laundering and fraud.
The DA said it was clear that Mpshe was under considerable pressure to halt the prosecution of Zuma before he was sworn in as president on May 9, 2009. On April 6, 2009, he announced his decision not to proceed with the prosecution.
The DA will argue that Mpshe made it clear, when he announced his decision, that nothing had been presented which would undermine the possibility of a fair trial for Zuma. He retained his confidence and neutrality in the team that was due to prosecute him.
Mpshe’s decision was instead based on supposed policy aspects militating against prosecution, arising from allegations of an abuse of process. This was based on “evidence” contained in the secret recordings of telephone conversations involving former Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy and former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka, it will be argued.
Mpshe claimed McCarthy manipulated the timing of the service of the indictment on Zuma to suit Mbeki, but the DA said Mpshe himself decided to delay the service of the indictment.
The DA added that, even if it is accepted that McCarthy acted improperly and everything he did was for ulterior political motives, that couldn’t vitiate the prosecution of Zuma, as long as the evidence indicated there was a case for him to answer. The DA said Mpshe’s decision not to prosecute was irrational, as it was entirely based on supposed political interference.
Pretoria News