Arms-deal+letter+pivotal+in+Zuma+battle,+Brown,+Mabuza,+B+Day

Business Day, Johannesburg, 29 August 2006
=Arms-deal letter pivotal in Zuma’s battle=


 * Karima Brown and Ernest Mabuza**

LAWYERS acting for African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Jacob Zuma will argue in their application for the stay of prosecution, that Zuma’s right to a fair trial has been fundamentally infringed when he appears on two charges of corruption in the Pietermaritzburg High Court next week. In heads of argument calling for the stay of prosecution, Zuma’s counsel would also argue that the judgment against Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, had created a false impression as to the letter of January 19 2001 being Zuma’s and reflecting his attitude towards an investigation into the arms deal.

The letter, signed by Zuma, to the then chairman of Parliament’s standing committee on public accounts, Gavin Woods, informed Woods of a presidential decision not to issue the proclamation required for the investigation Woods had sought into the arms deal.

Woods wanted Judge Willem Heath to head the multiagency probe, but the Constitutional Court ruled that a judge may not head the special investigative unit (SIU).

Zuma’s counsel would argue that the prosecution did not check with the obvious witness, the president, who is believed to have written the letter.

“That the president was not approached in this regard … and the press reports clearly indicating the president himself as the source and never refuted by him when he had every platform and mechanism to do so, and the averments in this application, reflect very poorly on a prosecution that proclaims itself the knight of truth and even-handedness,” Zuma’s counsel said. They have already indicated that they will call President Thabo Mbeki as a witness.

Zuma’s defence would also argue that he should have been charged with Shaik in his fraud and corruption trial. “For the present trial Shaik does not feature on the list of state witnesses. “If Zuma calls him, he cannot be cross-examined by Zuma’s counsel. This is trial prejudice which cannot be remedied and which may have had a decisive effect on the outcome of the trial.” Zuma would also argue that the state had been misleading the court in its application for an adjournment since the state knew that it would not be ready to try him and the French arms company Thint, his co-accused.

“Either they were not serious and honest in respect of the grounds for an adjournment or they were disingenuous in respect of the adjournment period,” Zuma’s defence said. “What is clear is that the prosecution is not entitled to an adjournment.”

Zuma’s defence also said for Judge Herbert Msimang to scold the prosecution and still allow it an adjournment, was to allow the prosecution the right to delay any trial by deliberately not fulfilling its constitutional obligations to ensure an expeditious trial.

His lawyers said the postponement would treat the court with disdain, as the court date was arranged with Judge-President Vuka Tshabalala last year, and arrangements were made in respect of the court, the assessors, counsel and the accused.

They said a fair prosecution implied that the accused was given the indictment on which he was to stand trial.

Zuma said the state intended to change radically the provisional indictment that it would be an “utter waste of time” for the defence even to ask for further particulars. “It is obvious that the state has failed abysmally in their obligations regarding the indictment. There is no indictment serving the statutory purpose.”


 * From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/national.aspx?ID=BD4A258700**

//579 words//