Heath+on+Ngcuka+political+agenda+re+Zuma+05-06-09

=Ngcuka had political agenda regarding Zuma, says Heath June 9, 2005=

Deputy President Jacob Zuma's chances of being convicted for arms-deal corruption are "almost nil", according to Judge Willem Heath.

The former head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) also accused former national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka of pursuing a political agenda by fingering Zuma without charging him.

This decision, Heath claims, is unprecedented and without any supporting legal principle.

Heath lost his position as head of the SIU when intense political pressure was brought to bear on his office after details of the arms deal corruption were sent to him, raising speculation that his unit would investigate the deal.

However, the necessary permission from the President's Office was never forthcoming and Heath finally lost his job after the legal profession took him to court over his investigations into Road Accident Fund fraud.

Yesterday, Heath said that nothing other than a political agenda could explain "the phenomenon that Ngcuka unleashed with his former crony (former justice minister) Penuell Maduna when they convicted Zuma in the popular media before Shaik was even arraigned.

"I am inextricably drawn to the inference that (Ngcuka), appointed as a politician, had a political motive for brutally attempting to destroy Zuma's reputation and stamping on his constitutional rights to defend himself against charges in court," Heath said. Judge Hilary Squires had not erred in his appraisal of Zuma's relationship with Schabir Shaik, but two scenarios had emanated from Ngcuka's "infamous decision", the hard-hitting former judge said.

"If Zuma is not prosecuted and he is guilty, the interests of South Africa have not been served. It could be almost impossible to secure a conviction against Zuma through a 'second take' of Shaik's trial," said Heath.

"If Zuma is innocent and he is not prosecuted, his reputation will remain unjustly tarnished, without the possibility of defending himself - with Ngcuka again having failed in his duties to serve the best interests of South Africa.

"Maybe even more importantly, had Zuma and Shaik been tried together, evidence could have surfaced to refute or rebut evidence that led to Shaik's conviction, and Zuma and Shaik could both have been acquitted," he added.

"So in a sense, Shaik's rights were fundamentally undermined and the fairness of the prosecution - but not the verdict of Judge Squires - could be questioned.

"The evidence which was tendered at Shaik's trial was available to Ngcuka when he arrived at his infamous decision not to prosecute Zuma, even with prima facie evidence. Is this decision and the reasons for arriving at the conclusion not to prosecute Zuma going to change now?" Heath asked.