Times LIVE, REUTERS | 29 April, 2016 12:43
President Jacob Zuma listens during a debate at the official opening of the National House of Traditional Leaders at the Tshwane Metro Council Chamber in Pretoria. File photo.
Image by: Sizwe Ndingane
The Democratic Alliance is celebrating a High Court ruling critical of the National Prosecuting Authority’s decision not to prosecute President Jacob Zuma for the 783 charges of fraud, corruption and money-laundering just prior to being elected ANC president.
“This finding by the court is an overwhelming victory for the Rule of Law, and the NPA must now immediately continue with the 783 charges of corruption so that President Zuma can finally have his day in court,” DA leader Mmusi Maimane said in a statement.
Maimane said the ruling substantiated the party’s view that the decision to drop the charges was made with an ulterior political motive.
“In the absence of any legitimate factual or legal reasons, the DA is led to believe that these charges were dropped for political purposes: a political solution needed to be found to drop charges against a person who was about to become President, and the Spy Tapes provided the convenient excuse,” Maiimane said.
“Despite it being an absolute outrage that President Zuma has, for almost six years, used taxpayer’s money to bankroll his opposition to the release of the Spy Tapes, he will be held to account as the law and due process demand.
“President Zuma must finally come to the realisation that he is not above the law.
“The NPA must regain respect of the people, act expeditiously and continue with the 783 charges of fraud, corruption and money-laundering against Jacob Zuma,” Maimane said.
The judgment
The NPA’s decision to drop the charges, taken in April of 2009, allowed Zuma to run for president.
National prosecutor Mokotedi Mpshe’s decision at the time was based on phone intercepts presented by Zuma’s legal team that suggested the timing of the charges against Zuma in late 2007 may have been part of a political plot against him.
However, Judge Aubrey Ledwaba said Mpshe’s thinking and behaviour was irrational, especially his failure to disclose his decision to prosecutors until the moment he announced it to the nation at a news conference.
“If the decision had been rational and above board, why the secrecy?” Ledwaba said.
The ruling adds pressure on Zuma, who has faced calls for his resignation even from within inside the ruling African National Congress since a damning constitutional court judgment against him last month.
South Africa’s rand rose towards a four-month high after the ruling, while government bonds also firmed.
“Mr. Zuma should face the charges as applied in the indictment,” Ledwaba said, summarising the unanimous ruling.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA(NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
In the matter of: –
THE STATE
versus
JACOB GEDLEYIHLEKISA ZUMATHINT HOLDING (SOUTHERN AFRICA) (PTY) LTD
(formerly known as Thomson-CSF Holding (Southern Africa) (Pty) Ltd)(hereinafter also referred to as
Thomson Holdings
)(as represented by
Pierre Jean-Marie Robert Moynot
)
THINT (PTY) LTD
(formerly known as Thomson-CSF (Pty) Ltd)(hereinafter also referred to as
Thomson (Pty)
)(as represented by
Pierre Jean-Marie Robert Moynot
)(hereinafter also referred to as the accused)
INDICTMENT
The State alleges that the accused are guilty of the following crimes :
COUNT 1: RACKETEERING
incontravention of Section 2(1)(e) readwith Sections 1, 2(2) and 3 of thePrevention of Organised Crime Act,No. 121 of 1998, as amended:
Whilst employed by or associatedwith any enterprise, conducts or participates in the conduct,directly or indirectly, of suchenterprise’s affairs through apattern of racketeering activities.
(Accused 1 to 3)
COUNT 2: CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 1(1)(b) readwith section 1(2) and 3 of theCorruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
In the alternative (as separate counts)SUBCOUNT 1: CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 1(1)(b) readwith section 1(2) and 3 of theCorruption Act, No. 94 of 1992. (Inrespect of the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004)
SUBCOUNT 2: CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 3(a) readwith sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 1 July 2005) A
lternatively to subcount 2:RECEIVING AN UNAUTHORISEDGRATIFICATION BY A PERSONWHO IS PARTY TO ANEMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
incontravention of section 10(a) readwith sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 14 June 2005)
COUNT 3
:
CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 1(1)(a) readwith section 1(2) and 3 of theCorruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 2and 3)
In the alternative (as separate counts)SUBCOUNT 1: CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 1(1)(a) readwith section 1(2) and 3 of theCorruption Act, No. 94 of 1992. (Inrespect of the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004)
SUBCOUNT 2: CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 3(b) readwith sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 1 July 2005) A
lternatively to subcount 2:GIVING AN UNAUTHORISEDGRATIFICATION TO A PERSONWHO IS PARTY TO ANEMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
incontravention of section 10(b) readwith sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 14 June 2005)
COUNT 4: CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 1(1)(b) readwith section 1(2) and 3 of theCorruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.(In terms of section 156 of Act No. 51of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
COUNT 5: CORRUPTION
incontravention of section 1(1)(a) read
https://www.scribd.com/doc/310899824/SpyTapes-Jacob-Zuma-Charge-Sheet-2009
