Shaun Abrahams
Parliament - The DA said that President Jacob Zuma would most likely make new representations to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as to why he should not be tried for corruption.

This was after his lawyer conceded in the Supreme Court of Appeal that the 2009 withdrawal of the charges was irrational.

James Selfe, the DA’s federal executive chairperson, on Monday said the party expected that should the SCA reject Zuma’s appeal of the North Gauteng High Court ruling that he must face the 783 charges in question, he would rely on “compromised” National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams to draw the matter out.

“Specifically, we suspect that Mr Zuma will want to make fresh representations about why charges against him should be dropped.

“He made written and oral representations on why exactly the same charges ought to be dropped back in 2009, and these representations were rejected,” Selfe said.

“But now he is likely to argue that Mr Mpshe (previously an ally in this matter) was hopelessly inept (as several courts have found) and therefore he is entitled to make representations again, introducing new grounds, including the time that has elapsed since the charges were formulated.”

Should this fail, the president could still apply for a permanent stay of prosecution on the charges of corruption, fraud and racketeering stemming from the country's 1999 arms deal.

“So this saga is by no means over, but we will see it out to the bitter end,” Selfe said.

He added that the DA had thus far spent R10million pursuing the so-called spy tapes case for the past eight-and-a-half-years, and that Zuma should be made to pay the court costs because he has been wasting public funds in a drawn-out bid to evade the law.

“In the most recent example of unnecessary litigation costs, Mr Zuma was content to use public money to send large legal teams to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.

“He therefore knew full well that his counsel would concede that the original decision to drop the charges was irrational, therefore essentially guaranteeing that the court would set the decision aside.”

The SCA reserved judgment in the matter last week.