Yet another Zuma corruption trial appeal dismissed, with costs

Former president Jacob Zuma’s application for leave to appeal the judgment that his corruption prosecution should go ahead was dismissed with costs at the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Friday.

Three judges found that there was no compelling reason why Zuma should be granted leave to appeal the dismissal of his bid for a permanent stay of prosecution.

“It is in the interest of justice and bringing the matter to finality that no appeal should ensue,” read the ruling from Judges Jerome Mnguni, Esther Steyn and Thoba Poyo-Dlwati.

The core of Zuma’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution was his long-time allegation that, due to an unreasonable delay in the commencement of the proceedings, it won’t be possible to receive a fair trial.

Speaking to the delays in the trial, the judgment said another court would not find differently if all factors were considered.

“We do not believe that another court, after properly considering judgment in context and in its totality, would find differently.”

It said Zuma’s submission, that the judges had overemphasised the seriousness of his alleged crimes, had no merit.

“The seriousness of the crime is but one of the factors to be considered in an application for a permanent stay. We, therefore, are not persuaded that another court, in particular, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), would come to a different conclusion.”

Regarding Zuma’s assertion that his rights were violated, the judges were not convinced.

“We do not agree. It is unlikely that the SCA will find differently…”

The judgment also spoke of language used by Zuma’s legal team earlier this month. They had accused the court of having violated some sections of the Criminal Procedure Act.

“In our view, comments or allegations that are scandalous or vexatious to the court ought to be avoided at all costs, as they can bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

Zuma was handed a costs order because his gripe was not legitimate, read the judgment.

“In our view, Mr Zuma’s complaints were not genuine, hence a costs order. In any event, there was no compelling reason why the costs should not follow the result, the current application included. This issue was not raised in argument before us despite the State’s argument for such an order.”

Stalingrad tactics

Zuma is facing charges of fraud, corruption, money laundering, and racketeering related to the purchase of fighter jets, patrol boats, and military equipment arms deal when he was deputy president to Thabo Mbeki.

He is accused of taking bribes worth R4 million before he became president from a R51 billion 1999 arms purchase by five European firms.

Pre-trial proceedings were earlier this year postponed to February 4, 2020.

Zuma’s lawyer, Thabani Masuku, told the court at the start of the trial that the former president would appeal, dragging on a case that has seen numerous legal twists over 15 years.

“Mr Zuma would like to exercise the full extent of his constitutional rights, which includes the right to appeal,” Masuku told the court.

Zuma had until November 1 to file papers in the leave to appeal bid.

The leave to appeal application was heard on November 22, ahead of the criminal case returning to court in February.

Zuma has been accused of applying ‘Stalingrad tactics’ to delay justice, but his defence team, who has claimed he is so broke he had to sell his socks to raise legal fees, maintained that the former president had been ready for trial for 14 years.

Thales

One of the five companies implicated in the arms deal was French defence company Thales.

Zuma is charged along with Thales, which is accused of paying the bribes he allegedly received and will also stand trial. The company’s stay of prosecution application was denied along with the former president’s.

Both Zuma and Thales deny the charges.

Previously, Thales senior counsel Anton Katz said the court had overlooked the argument that the National Prosecuting Authority used the incorrect legal provision to reinstate charges.

“We do not agree and, more importantly, the SCA has already pronounced on this issue. We do not believe therefore that… the decision could have been irrational or contrary to NPA policy. In the circumstances, we are not persuaded that another court would find differently,” the judgment read.

Teflon president

Critics have dubbed him the “Teflon president” for his reputed ability to evade judicial reckoning.

His former financial adviser Schabir Shaik, who allegedly facilitated Thales’s payments, was in 2005 found guilty of fraud and corruption and sentenced to 15 years behind bars.

But shortly after Zuma became president in 2009, Shaik was released on medical parole.

Analysts have warned that if Zuma goes on trial, he will drag down many ANC leaders with him.

Zuma has also been accused of overseeing the mass looting of state assets during his presidency.

High on the list of alleged benefactors is the wealthy Indian-born Gupta business family, who were accused of unfairly obtaining lucrative government contracts and even influencing Zuma’s ministerial appointments.

(Background reporting: AFP and News24 Wire)

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.