28 Sep 2006: ISS Today: South Africa: Zuma Corruption Trial Struck Off Roll

28 September 2006: ‘Zuma corruption trial struck off roll’1, South Africa


 

A judge has thrown out a corruption case against former South African deputy president Jacob Zuma, a contender for the country`s top job. Judge Herbert Msimang stopped short of completely dismissing graft charges against Zuma, leaving the door open for the prosecution to reframe the charges. National Prosecuting Authority spokesman Makhosini Nkosi said … that the state intended to bring the matter to trial again, and added it had a "strong and winnable case" against Zuma (who) was accused of having a corrupt relationship with his former financial advisor and taking bribes from a French arms company in exchange for helping to clinch multimillion-dollar government contracts. 2

 

Commentary


Many people have questioned whether the throwing out of the Zuma corruption case means that the state’s case had collapsed completely and whether the outcome is normal under the circumstances. The legal status is clear: the case has been struck off the roll and can be reinstated when the state is ready to proceed; however, the developments that led to the striking of this case off the roll are less clear and raise interesting questions.

 

There have been mixed reactions from the public: on the one hand are those who have rejoiced because “justice has prevailed”; on the other hand are those who are disappointed, believing that such a significant case should not be disposed of merely on the basis of technicalities. The latter is the view expressed by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The question that begs answering is whether the outcome was anything out of the ordinary: has the behaviour of the judge been exceptional under the circumstances?  

 

It is not uncommon in criminal cases for the court to strike off or remove a case from the roll if the state is not ready to proceed with the hearing, the justification for which lies in many possible areas. The investigation may be incomplete should the police be looking for further key evidence to prove their case; another example would be the unavailability of a witness due to illness. In circumstances such as these the court is likely to strike the case off the roll, even if it would have preferred a postponement.

 

In the case of the State v. Zuma, the accused first appeared in the magistrate’s court in October 2005. On this appearance a firm date for the commencement of the hearing in the High Court was agreed to – the 31 July 2006 – by the prosecution and the defence. The defence was provided with a provisional indictment. However, during April 2006 the prosecution realised that it would not be possible to commence with the hearing on the agreed date and indicated it would apply for a postponement when the case came before court.  

 

From the judgment it seems the grounds on which the prosecution sought a further postponement were twofold:

  • the indictment was not yet finalised and would only be complete by 15 October 2006, and,

  • The investigation had not been completed as a result of certain pending appeals against the seizures of certain documents from the accused and his lawyers.

The court refused to grant the postponement requested by the State, and so in effect the prosecution had to proceed. However, they were not in a position to do so because there was no indictment to which the accused could plead.

 

On the basis of the foregoing, what happened would ordinarily have happened in any other criminal case under such circumstances. The NPA has been berated by many, including the judge, for a series of mistakes that resulted in the striking off of this case. Indeed, it escapes logic as to how the NPA could have committed to a specific date for commencement of the trial when they knew, or ought to have known, that they would not be able to proceed on the basis of the evidence already in their possession. When one commits to a date in the High Court, the understanding is that there is no cause to doubt that the trial will proceed on that day. The NPA, therefore, should have argued their case for postponement in the magistrate’s court – and it should not have been referred to the High Court in the first place. This apparent mistake on the part of the NPA, evidently a result of some pressure from the defence, has caused it grave embarrassment and does little for the image of this important institution.

 

Jake Moloi, Crime and Justice Programme.

  1. People’s Daily Online, 21 September 2006

  2. http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=55655&SelectRegion=Southern_Africa&SelectCountry=SOUTH_AFRICA