Willem+Heath,+Q+and+A,+Sunday+Times

Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 26 June 2005
=Willem Heath, Q & A=

The former head of the special investigations unit says the ex-director of the National Prosecutions Authority, Bulelani Ngcuka, had a political motive to destroy Jacob Zuma’s reputation. **CHRIS BARRON** asked him ...

Willem Heath: Because on the merits he could never have arrived at the conclusion not to prosecute Zuma, but to prosecute Shaik.
 * Chris Barron: Why did you say that?**

WH: Because of the attack on the judge [Hilary Squires]. And it was dealing with three issues. The first one is that the decision not to prosecute the partner in crime made it more difficult for the prosecution. Secondly, it made it difficult for the judge to arrive at the conclusion that Zuma was involved, but Zuma’s not before him as an accused. That really complicated the judgment. And because of the attack by the unions and other people on the judge I decided to issue that [statement].
 * CB: Why did you choose to make this remark at this time?**

WH: Yes, very much so. There are many examples that, where you charge culprits in the same case separately, you very often find that the one court will convict and the other one will acquit.
 * CB: Is there a chance Zuma could be acquitted?**

WH: That would have been difficult because Ngcuka could have raised the defence that if there was a prosecution he could have been convicted and therefore he was justified in making those allegations against him.
 * CB: You say Ngcuka had a political motive for trashing Zuma’s reputation — why didn’t Zuma sue for defamation?**

WH: I must confess that at the time I thought Zuma could have taken much stronger action.
 * CB: Surely, if Zuma had been confident there was no case against him he would have sued?**

WH: Yes, I think so, most definitely. In addition to that, I would say that in any democratic society Zuma would have resigned.
 * CB: Was President Thabo Mbeki justified in firing Zuma?**

WH: I’d be extremely hesitant because I was a witness in the first case and I might be a witness in the second case.
 * CB: If you were approached to be part of Zuma’s defence team, as an investigator?**

WH: The strange thing is that there was just a prosecution of the one party, and I will never understand that.
 * CB: Do you think there is any substance to political conspiracy allegations?**

WH: Well, having listened to the statements issued subsequent to the conviction I must say that those people were not judging the judge on the merits of the case, they were just making political statements in support of Zuma. They were purely political.
 * CB: I haven’t heard you question the political motives of the pro-Zuma camp.**

WH: Unless you’ve got information in addition to that which could point to prejudice or bias, you should not make statements such as that.
 * CB: Is it legitimate to bring up the judge’s past?**

WH: No. I have no reason to say that.
 * CB: Does his past have any relevance at all to his handling of the case?**

WH: I thought it was so close to contempt of court that I would have investigated that if I was in that position, and I might have considered prosecution.
 * CB: Should they have been held in contempt of court?**

WH: No, I think that will be a waste of time. A commission of inquiry brings out a report which has no legal effect or impact whatsoever.
 * CB: Should there be a judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal?**

WH: Yes, because there were clear indications of irregularities. The other agencies which investigated the matter had no authority or expertise to investigate the procurement or tender process, or the validity of the contracts.
 * CB: Would the findings of the arms inquiry have been very different if you’d participated?**

WH: Have a proper investigation. Open up all the evidence, make available all the documents. And if at the end of that they said, “yes, we were wrong and we made a mistake”, I would think that’s good enough. It’s too late for much further action to be taken, but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t prosecute other culprits. And there must be others.
 * CB: What must the government do to end the controversy once and for all?**

WH: As it stands now, yes. He’s the last person who should become available as a candidate. But if he’s acquitted then it’s a different story.
 * CB: Is the prospect of a Zuma presidency alarming to you?**

From: http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=ST6A127250