Africa 

News24.com | LIVE: It’s important for the ‘rule of law’ for Zuma to be ‘treated equally’ – State argues at #ZumaTrial

2019-05-23 14:00

Former president Jacob Zuma’s legal battle continues in the KZN High Court in Pietermaritzburg, where he and co-accused Thales are seeking a permanent stay of prosecution.

WATCH LIVE: 

(Courtesy of SABC) 

[embedded content] Jacob Zuma in consultation in the KZN High Court

LIVE NEWS FEED

Jump to
bottom

Last Updated at 14:18






12:42

Share Icon

Trengove’s full final submission on Zuma: 

“There is a high risk that if Mr Zuma escapes prosecution, that he will be seen to have received special treatment because he is an important and a powerful man. He is accused of corruption, racketeering, money laundering and fraud in high public office. 

He managed to avoid prosecution in the highest public office. 

He managed to do so by using to the hilt the Constitutional legal system available to him, at public expense of between R16m and R32m. 

As a result of his exercise of those rights, the trial was delayed. We submit that there is a high risk that if his trial is now finally stopped, that it would be seen and understood as a final victory of a powerful man exploiting to the hilt the options available to him to delay. Resulting ultimately in an undue delay in his prosecution. 

It is important in the maintenance of the rule of law, for all people to be seen to be treated equally. For that reason, it is important too, for Mr Zuma to be seen to be treated the same as others would have been too.” 

<input name="ctl00$ctl00$MainBodyPlaceholder$Column1Placeholder$articleLiveUpdateBody$rptPosts$ctl10$hfPostTitle" type="hidden" id="hfPostTitle" value="

Trengove’s full final submission on Zuma:&nbsp;

"There is a high risk that if Mr Zuma escapes prosecution, that he will be seen to have received special treatment because he is an important and a powerful man. He is accused of corruption, racketeering, money laundering and fraud in high public office.&nbsp;

He managed to avoid prosecution in the highest public office.&nbsp;

He managed to do so by using to the hilt the Constitutional legal system available to him, at public expense of between R16m and R32m.&nbsp;

As a result of his exercise of those rights, the trial was delayed. We submit that there is a high risk that if his trial is now finally stopped, that it would be seen and understood as a final victory of a powerful man exploiting to the hilt the options available to him to delay. Resulting ultimately in an undue delay in his prosecution.&nbsp;

It is important in the maintenance of the rule of law, for all people to be seen to be treated equally. For that reason, it is important too, for Mr Zuma to be seen to be treated the same as others would have been too."&nbsp;

“>



12:26

Share Icon

Steyn puts it to Trengove that Zuma has suffered reputational harm since 2003, when Ngcuka announced he would not be prosecuted. 

Trengove submits the reputational harm Zuma has suffered is not as a result of the delays, but the question should be, has he suffered more harm as a result of the series of damning court findings?

“The reputational harm was severe and overwhelming even. But not as a result of any delay. But as a result of his association with Mr Shaik,” Trengove says. 

The fact of the matter is, he adds, that Zuma’s political career “flourished” – despite the harm he claims to have suffered. He was fired from Cabinet by Mbeki because of the Shaik trial, but he still went on to become president. 

“So much for reputational harm,” Trengove says. 

<input name="ctl00$ctl00$MainBodyPlaceholder$Column1Placeholder$articleLiveUpdateBody$rptPosts$ctl14$hfPostTitle" type="hidden" id="hfPostTitle" value="

Steyn puts it to Trengove that Zuma has suffered reputational harm since 2003, when Ngcuka announced he would not be prosecuted.&nbsp;

Trengove submits the reputational harm Zuma has suffered is not as a result of the delays, but the question should be, has he suffered more harm as a result of the series of damning court findings?

"The reputational harm was severe and overwhelming even. But not as a result of any delay. But as a result of his association with Mr Shaik," Trengove says.&nbsp;

The fact of the matter is, he adds, that Zuma’s political career "flourished" – despite the harm he claims to have suffered. He was fired from Cabinet by Mbeki because of the Shaik trial, but he still went on to become president.&nbsp;

"So much for reputational harm," Trengove says.&nbsp;

“>











12:00

Share Icon

Mr Zuma complains that he should have been charged with Mr Shaik, and then he would have had the advantage of cross-examining Mr Shaik. 

One does not know what Mr Shaik would have done, had it been a joint prosecution. 

If they had been charged together, he (Shaik) would not have been a compellable witness.

“An accused doesn’t have a right to have his trial designed to his best advantage,” Trengove submits.

“In respect of the decision by Mr Ngcuka, we submit it was entirely lawful.” 

<input name="ctl00$ctl00$MainBodyPlaceholder$Column1Placeholder$articleLiveUpdateBody$rptPosts$ctl34$hfPostTitle" type="hidden" id="hfPostTitle" value="

Mr Zuma complains that he should have been charged with Mr Shaik, and then he would have had the advantage of cross-examining Mr Shaik.&nbsp;

One does not know what Mr Shaik would have done, had it been a joint prosecution.&nbsp;

If they had been charged together, he (Shaik) would not have been a compellable witness.

"An accused doesn’t have a right to have his trial designed to his best advantage," Trengove submits.

"In respect of the decision by Mr Ngcuka, we submit it was entirely lawful."&nbsp;

“>


11:58

Share Icon

Ngcuka is criticised for making an announcement that he would be prosecuting Shaik, but not Zuma on August 23, 2003. 

Trengove submits that the NPA was at that time, young and untested. Ngcuka knew the connection between Zuma and Shaik would become clear in the indictment to be filed shortly. 

He felt it necessary to explain to the public why the NPA was charging the common man, Shaik, and not the deputy president.

“It was an understandable and good faith explanation to protect the integrity of the NPA,” Trengove adds.

Another argument put forth by Zuma’s legal team is that it was a violation of the NPA Act not to charge Zuma. 

<input name="ctl00$ctl00$MainBodyPlaceholder$Column1Placeholder$articleLiveUpdateBody$rptPosts$ctl36$hfPostTitle" type="hidden" id="hfPostTitle" value="

Ngcuka is criticised for making an announcement that he would be prosecuting Shaik, but not Zuma on August 23, 2003.&nbsp;

Trengove submits that the NPA was at that time, young and untested. Ngcuka knew the connection between Zuma and Shaik would become clear in the indictment to be filed shortly.&nbsp;

He felt it necessary to explain to the public why the NPA was charging the common man, Shaik, and not the deputy president.

"It was an understandable and good faith explanation to protect the integrity of the NPA," Trengove adds.

Another argument put forth by Zuma’s legal team is that it was a violation of the NPA Act not to charge Zuma.&nbsp;

“>


























10:11

Share Icon

In the DA’s quest for Mpshe’s decision to be set aside, there were two interlocutory applications (which contributed to the lengthy delays). Together, these applications took 54 months to deal with, four years roughly.

The first interlocutory application was a challenge by the NDPP and Zuma to the locus standi (standing) of the DA to bring the application to set aside Mpshe’s decision. 

When the matter returned to the High Court after this was dealt with, Zuma and the NDPP did not want to include the review record for the DA to have access to the parts of the spy tapes that Mpshe based his decision on. 

This led to another interlocutory application, this time by the DA, to compel the inclusion of the spy tapes records. 

Finally, in April 2016, the court heard the DA’s application for Mpshe’s decision to be set aside.

“Whatever the motive of the litigation was, the effect was to delay the prosecution,” Trengove tells the court. 

<input name="ctl00$ctl00$MainBodyPlaceholder$Column1Placeholder$articleLiveUpdateBody$rptPosts$ctl86$hfPostTitle" type="hidden" id="hfPostTitle" value="

In the DA’s quest for Mpshe’s decision to be set aside, there were two interlocutory applications (which contributed to the lengthy delays). Together, these applications took 54 months to deal with, four years roughly.

The first interlocutory application was a challenge by the NDPP and Zuma to the locus standi (standing) of the DA to bring the application to set aside Mpshe’s decision.&nbsp;

When the matter returned to the High Court after this was dealt with, Zuma and the NDPP did not want to include the review record for the DA to have access to the parts of the spy tapes that Mpshe based his decision on.&nbsp;

This led to another interlocutory application, this time by the DA, to compel the inclusion of the spy tapes records.&nbsp;

Finally, in April 2016, the court heard the DA’s application for Mpshe’s decision to be set aside.

"Whatever the motive of the litigation was, the effect was to delay the prosecution," Trengove tells the court.&nbsp;

“>







09:51

Share Icon

The cases that form part of Zuma’s “Stalingrad defence” according to the State: 

2006 – Mr Zuma’s and Thint’s (ultimately unsuccessful) challenges to the lawfulness of the search warrants issued against them 

2006 – Mr Zuma’s and Thint’s (unsuccessful) challenge to the letter of request issued to access information held by the Mauritian authorities 

2009 – Mr Zuma’s (ultimately unsuccessful) challenge to his indictment in terms of Section 179 of the Constitution 

2011 – Mr Zuma’s (ultimately unsuccessful) challenge to the DA’s locus standi in the DA’s review application, the reviewability of the decision of the acting NDPP to discontinue his prosecution and to the furnishing of the record to the DA 

2018 – Mr Zuma’s (unsuccessful) opposition to the DA’s review application 

<input name="ctl00$ctl00$MainBodyPlaceholder$Column1Placeholder$articleLiveUpdateBody$rptPosts$ctl98$hfPostTitle" type="hidden" id="hfPostTitle" value="

The cases that form part of Zuma’s "Stalingrad defence" according to the State:&nbsp;

2006 – Mr Zuma’s and Thint’s (ultimately unsuccessful) challenges to the lawfulness of the search warrants issued against them&nbsp;

2006 – Mr Zuma’s and Thint’s (unsuccessful) challenge to the letter of request issued to access information held by the Mauritian authorities&nbsp;

2009 – Mr Zuma’s (ultimately unsuccessful) challenge to his indictment in terms of Section 179 of the Constitution&nbsp;

2011 – Mr Zuma’s (ultimately unsuccessful) challenge to the DA’s locus standi in the DA’s review application, the reviewability of the decision of the acting NDPP to discontinue his prosecution and to the furnishing of the record to the DA&nbsp;

2018 – Mr Zuma’s (unsuccessful) opposition to the DA’s review application&nbsp;

“>

Jump to
top

Please follow and like us:
error

Related posts

One Thought to “News24.com | LIVE: It’s important for the ‘rule of law’ for Zuma to be ‘treated equally’ – State argues at #ZumaTrial”

  1. Hello. I have checked your africaglobalvillage.com and
    i see you’ve got some duplicate content so probably it is the reason that you don’t
    rank high in google. But you can fix this issue fast. There is
    a tool that rewrites content like human, just search in google:
    miftolo’s tools

Comments are closed.