Zuma advocate argues NPA ‘no longer has winnable case’

Former president Jacob Zuma’s legal team has argued that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) “no longer has a winnable case” against the former president.

Zuma appeared in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Thursday together with French arms company Thales.

Delays

In February 2025, Thales cited lengthy delays that have resulted in an “irremediable infringement of its constitutional rights to a fair trial” in an application to have charges against it dropped and for the company to be acquitted.

Thales is seeking an order to halt the NPA from persisting with the corruption and racketeering case against it.

In April, Zuma filed an affidavit that supported the application brought by Thales on 5 February 2025, seeking to be acquitted on the basis that the state “misconstrued Thales’ cause of action as being based on an infringement of its right to have its trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delays.”

ALSO READ: Zuma’s bid to force Downer’s removal from arms deal case dismissed

Acquittal

During court proceedings on Thursday, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, argued that the former president’s application should be summarily acquitted should Thales be successful in its application for an acquittal.

“The matter can be decided really on the very first point, which is that the state has materially misconstrued the case that has been brought by both accused (Zuma and Thales), to the extent that the real case between the parties has not been answered and remains basically unopposed.”

Stalingrad strategy

Mpofu also argued that the state’s Stalingrad litigation accusations against Zuma, which have been upheld by several courts, as being a “scratched record” and the same “tired old song”.

In February 2025, Zuma’s counsel argued against multiple court findings that the former president had engaged in Stalingrad legal tactics, and had pursued futile cases and appeals with the sole aim of delaying his arms trial and avoiding his day in court.

They claimed that the state was responsible because it refused to fire its arms deal prosecutor, Billy Downer.

Zuma wants Downer to be removed from the prosecution over alleged bias, saying his right to a fair trial would be infringed if the prosecutor remained.

Case ‘no longer winnable’

The former president’s lawyer, Advocate Naba Buthelezi, argued that the state “no longer had a winnable case” against Zuma because so many allegedly crucial witnesses have died.

“We need to disabuse this court and the public and everybody else of this allegation that the 783 charges of corruption. There’s no such nonsense. It’s never been; we only have 18 counts.”

Buthelezi argued that the state knows that it cannot win its case against Zuma, but is pursuing it because it is trying “to save face”.

“This must be said, the state now runs this case knowing that they can’t win it. However, they run to save face, because they’ve run a 20-year-plus trial pursuing allegations of corruption of R3 million of change at hundreds of millions of costs to the state.

“Now, having done this thing against the public of spending hundreds of millions to chase an allegation of 20 years ago, that is about R3 million, they can’t just walk away. So now they’re forcing your Lordship to be in this position of where you sit for by dud of trial,” Buthelezi argued.

ALSO READ: Thales seeks acquittal after delays and death of witnesses in Zuma case

Thales

Buthelezi argued that because one of the witnesses, Thales representative Alain Thétard is dead, and the state won’t be able to use the so called “encrypted fax” evidence against Zuma, despite the fact that it did not require Thétard’s testimony to prove that the fax recorded a corrupt agreement in the Shaik trial.

The state alleges that Zuma received a corrupt monthly payment from his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, who in turn benefited through political influence to advance his business interests.

Thales was initially charged in 2004, but the charges were later withdrawn following an agreement between Thales—then represented by its sole director in South Africa, Pierre Moynot—and the prosecution.

As part of the agreement, Thétard provided an affidavit that the state intended to use in future prosecutions.

ALSO READ: Karyn Maughan on her battles with Zuma and why she wrote a book about it

Witnesses

During Thales’s arguments, advocate Barry Roux representing the French arms company stated that there were no witnesses who could give evidence in Thales’s defence because the officials who could have testified “are now dead”.

Downer suggested that Thales could call Shaik.

“Ja right,” responded Roux, indicating to all the adverse credibility findings made against Shaik in his corruption trial, where he was found guilty of bribing Zuma.

In court papers. Downer argued that Thales could call Shaik, who is one of its former directors, to testify about the evidence that ultimately resulted in his own corruption conviction.

“Mr Shaik will be a compellable witness in the criminal trial. As far as the state knows, he is physically and mentally able to consult with Thales’ legal representatives and testify if called by Thales,” Downer stated in court papers filed at the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg.

“Mr Shaik was a director of Thales until 30 September 1999 and…the state alleges that he was involved in almost all of the events underpinning the charges against Thales, including those relating to the period after late 2000.”

ALSO READ: Downer dismisses Zuma’s allegations of ‘racist undertones’ in legal strategy

Bribe

It is the state’s case that Shaik facilitated a bribe agreement between Zuma and Thales where the then deputy president was promised R500 000 a year, in exchange for his political protection for any potential investigation into the multibillion-rand arms deal.

While Shaik denied any wrongdoing, he was nonetheless found guilty of involvement in that corrupt scheme.

Roux argued that Thales was “paralysed from the neck” in this case. “It cannot move,” he said.

Zuma loses appeal

Earlier on Thursday, Judge Nkosinathi Chilli, presiding over Zuma and Thales’ application for acquittal, dismissed the former president’s appeal application to have Downer removed from his arms deal corruption trial.

Zuma’s legal team in February filed for leave to appeal Judge Chili’s decision to dismiss the recusal application against Downer.

The former president argued that Downer should be removed from the case due to alleged bias, claiming his continued involvement would compromise the right to a fair trial.

In dismissing Zuma’s application for Downer’s removal, Chili said he considered “all the facts” that the former president argued as a basis for Downer to be forced to step down.

Prospects

Chili said he does not believe Zuma’s right to a fair trial would be compromised if Downer remains as prosecutor.

The judge added that he does not believe there is a reasonable prospect that another court will differ with his ruling on Zuma’s application for Downer’s removal.

Zuma instructed Mpofu to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to appeal Chili’s ruling.

ALSO READ: ConCourt dismisses Zuma’s private prosecution appeal against Ramaphosa