Trial+threatens+political+shocks,+5+strange+days,+Gordin,+Sindy



=Trial threatens political shocks=


 * //'One of the pillars of the defence's strategy, apart from the consensual sex argument, is that this trial was set up by people in high places'//**

Sunday Independent, Johannesburg, March 12, 2006

 * By Jeremy Gordin**

The rape trial of Jacob Zuma, the former deputy president, is heading towards the detonation of a number of politically charged bombshells that could throw the country into an uproar.

Going by this week's evidence, the first of these bombshells relates to the alleged roles of Ronnie Kasrils, the minister for intelligence, and other people, in connection with the 31-year-old complainant's decision to lay a complaint against Zuma on November 4 and her subsequent decision, during the following 18 days, to continue to stick with the complaint.

It is clear from the defence's line of questioning of the complainant, and of her mother on Friday, that the defence will argue at the end of the trial that an "exterior force with an ulterior motive", as one of them called it, could have played a major role in the complainant's decision-making process.

The second bombshell still remains murky, but appears to relate to the whereabouts of the complainant and her mother when both were secluded under police protection from about November 5 until now.

The defence is attempting to ascertain whether the complainant accompanied Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the deputy president, on her controversial holiday to Dubai at the end of December.

The first five days of the trial, which re-started on Monday with Judge Willem van der Merwe on the bench - after it was adjourned last month following the recusal of Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, and the non-availability, due to prior "connections" with Zuma, of deputy judges president Jeremiah Shongwe and Phineas Mojapelo - has been focused on the complainant's version of her alleged rape by Zuma, an exploration of her sexual history by the defence and evidence by, and cross-examination of, the complainant's mother.

Zuma has pleaded not guilty to the rape charge and the defence has put his version of the events of November 2/3 - that he and the complainant had consensual sexual intercourse for 15 minutes - to the complainant, who has said Zuma's version is not true.

Having succeeded with an in camera application in terms of section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defence was given leave to cross-question the complainant about her past sexual history, and Kemp J Kemp, SC, Zuma's lead counsel, put it in detail to the complainant that she had alleged that she had been raped, but never pressed charges, on at least six previous occasions, including three when she was over 16.

Kemp argued that, this being the case, it seemed very unusual that she had opted to press charges against Zuma. And, besides examining her sexual history, Kemp asked the 31-year-old woman at least four times whether she was aware of the political dimensions of having decided to make a complaint against Zuma.

Kemp suggested that she knew "very well" that a rape charge against Zuma would be "sweet music" to the ears of "the anti-Zuma camp".

Kemp also repeatedly asked her why she had contacted Kasrils on the day following the alleged rape and what he had said to her. The complainant replied that she did not consider "politics" at all when she made the complaint, that she had called "Uncle Ronnie" Kasrils only to enquire about witness protection, and that Kasrils had told her that she must do as she saw fit about the matter.

She also refused to answer one of the questions dealing with the political implications of what had happened - the only question she refused to answer during her cross-examination.

On Friday, Jerome Brauns, SC, Zuma's second counsel, asked the complainant's mother, who had joined her daughter in witness protection, whether she knew Kasrils.

She replied that she did because her husband, a well-known ANC leader who was imprisoned on Robben Island at one time with Zuma and was later killed in a car crash in Zimbabwe, "knew [Kasrils] well, was with him on the island …" (Kasrils was never imprisoned on Robben Island.)

Brauns then asked her how often she spoke to Kasrils and she replied "not often - but I have called him from time to time to wish him merry Christmas, happy new year, and so on". She added that she had not spoken to him for a long time.

Brauns then put it to her that, according to the phone records before him, someone had called the Kasrils's cellphone from her cellphone on November 12 - the day on which the complainant was told by the Sunday Times that it intended running a story about the rape charge.

The complainant's mother said she "had no response" to Brauns' contention.

Earlier Kemp repeatedly asked the complainant who had told her "to lie" on November 12 to the Sunday Times and The Sunday Independent about whether she had made a complaint of rape against Zuma.

She replied twice that "one of her [police] minders", a Superintendent Khan, had instructed her to do so. Kemp said an affidavit from Khan, who would be called as a witness, suggested that the decision had been in concert with the complainant.

A puzzling and so far unexplained line of questions from Kemp and Brauns has been repeated queries about how many passports the complainant has and whether she has ever been to Dubai.

On Friday Kemp asked her to hand over her passport, which she had in her pocket, so that the defence might look at the entry and exit stamps in it. After she did so, the defence asked for an unexplained adjournment for about 10 minutes.

The woman told the court that at one time she had three passports - a temporary and permanent passport, as well one procured for her with "the assistance of the government", which she explained was the department of social welfare where she once worked.

She said she had been to Dubai once some years ago - "when I was stranded at the airport there for 36 hours". She now had two passports only - her two permanent ones.

"It's no secret," said a senior counsel not connected with the rape trial yesterday, "that one pillar of the defence's strategy, besides the consensual sex defence, is that this trial was set up by people in high places, as Zuma has claimed for a long time.

"But the difficulty is that if the prosecution is smart, and they appear to be, they will not call Kasrils - he has already made an affidavit - so as to avoid him having to go into the witness box."

The counsel said that, if this happened, the defence would also be unlikely to call the minister for intelligence because, from their point of view, he is a "hostile" witness.

"Besides, they have already placed on record their inferences about external influence and, if Kasrils does not take the stand, then the court may well accept those."

The counsel said he also expected that the state would not call Zweli Mkhize, the KwaZulu-Natal MEC for finance, even though he, too, is on the witness list, because he would be a witness "hostile" to the state.

That the defence would also not call him because it would not want him to be cross-examined. The complainant told the court this week that Mkhize had acted for Zuma in trying to reach a settlement between herself, her mother and Zuma.


 * From: http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3154137**



=Five strange and gruelling days=

Sunday Independent, Johannesburg, March 12, 2006

 * By Jeremy Gordin**

One of the strangest trials in South African history completed its first five gruelling days in Johannesburg high court 4E this week.

It was a trial in which Jacob Zuma, the former deputy president, a presidential contender and a man set to stand trial for corruption, pleaded not guilty to raping a former and late ANC comrade's 31-year-old daughter. And, contrary to what she had repeatedly told the court, Zuma said they had had consensual sex in the bedroom of his Forest Town, Johannesburg, home.

This, he claimed, had been preceded by a short massage session during which "baby oil" had been used. In addition, his counsel said on his behalf, Zuma had not used a condom even though the woman had repeatedly discussed her HIV-positive status with him.

The complainant said Zuma had come into the room where she was sleeping, and raped her.

She said he said to her: "I told you I'd take care of you … sweetheart. You are a real girl."

At some point Zuma "pecked" her on the lips and cheek.

The complainant said at first she lay on the bed and did nothing. Eventually she gathered her strength, found her kanga (sarong) and drew it over her.

It was a trial during which the woman who has accused Zuma of rape told the court that she had allegedly been raped at least six times during her life.

Once of these rapes had allegedly been committed by her housemaster at a theological seminary while she was unconscious, due to a sort of "attack" to which she says she is susceptible from time to time.

She believed, however, she told the court, that the housemaster had indeed been responsible, because her mother confirmed that the foetus removed from her five months later bore a resemblance to the man.

It was a trial that was due to have begun on February 13, the day before Valentine's Day, but had to be re-scheduled to March 6 because Judge Bernard Ngoepe, the judge president of the Transvaal, recused himself on the basis that Zuma would consider him biased because he had signed off certain Scorpions' search warrants; because Judge Jeremiah Shongwe, Ngoepe's deputy, could not take the bench due to his sister having had a so-called love child, Edward, with Zuma almost three decades ago; and because Judge Phineas Mojapelo, Ngoepe's second deputy, had been active during the struggle with Zuma.

So the person on the bench became Judge Willem van der Merwe, a courteous, white, and anglicised Afrikaner male in his late 50s or early 60s, probably best known for having sent apartheid killer Eugene de Kock to jail for two life sentences plus 212 years.

It was a trial during which the woman's mother said that, following her daughter's alleged rape, she had discussed in detail the terms of recompense with Zuma. These related, the mother said, to money both for a fence at the family home and for the daughter's further studies at university.

It was a trial during which the complainant painted a picture, including of her time in exile, that delineated a life that was continually, and with scant or no chance of protection, at the mercy of male sexual predatoriness.

It was a trial in which the daughter of a well-known ANC activist revealed that at least two of the country's leaders, whom she continually referred to as her "uncles" (umalume) - Zuma and Ronnie Kasrils, the minister for intelligence - were available to talk to her any time simply by pressing a button on her cellphone.

It was a trial during which the complainant said that she had lied to two newspapers about whether she made a complaint of rape against Zuma because she had been told to do so by her police minder, a Superintendent Khan.

"She [Khan] said that I must call them and tell them I would take legal action if they continued with the story."

She said she then sent a text message that had been dictated to her to the Sunday Times. After speaking to the Sunday Times on the phone she was told to phone the rival newspaper, the Sunday Tribune. Her minder, she said, gave her the number of Jeremy Gordin, a writer for Independent Newspapers.

"She said I must tell him that the Sunday Times were in the process of printing a story in the newspaper and I must say I am the person in the story and that I denied everything."

Gordin, she said, asked her if he could print her name. She consulted Khan while they were on the phone and decided yes, he could do so.

It was also a trial in which Zuma's counsel told the court that his 20-year-old daughter, Duduzile, the only other person in the house that night besides Zuma and the complainant, would testify in due course that the complainant had been "inappropriately dressed" when she allegedly went to say goodnight to Zuma in his study dressed in her kanga wearing no underwear.

The complainant said that this was what she always wore when she went to bed and since she felt completely "at home" in Zuma's house. Since she felt part of the family, there was no reason why she should not have worn it.

This was a trial in which the complainant also told the court herself that, following her alleged rape, she sent a message to friends saying: "I am very uncomfortable, umalume is starting to look at me sexually. There must be something in my drawers (underwear). The mothers must not know".

She said she had done this because she wanted them to know something had happened, but could not bring herself to tell them exactly what it had been.

And it was a trial during which, in scenes eerily reminiscent of medieval pogroms against so-called witches, the complainant was burnt in effigy by a crowd shouting "burn the bitch" and asking how much she had been paid to sell Zuma out.

Probably not since the trial in Pretoria of "wit wolf" Barend Strydom, when men in neo-Nazi uniforms strutted around outside the courthouse, have there been such offensive scenes.


 * From: http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=1042&fArticleId=3154141 **

2301 words