New arms deal challenge a headache for Zuma
Former president’s defence against corruption charges undermined by latest development
THE legal team for former president Jacob Zuma and the courts cannot place much reliance on the findings of the Seriti commission into the arms deal, as the findings are now being challenged, a legal expert said yesterday.
Lawson Naidoo, of the lobby group the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, said the fact that the findings were now being challenged in court and that President Cyril Ramaphosa had decided not to oppose the matter, meant Zuma’s legal team could not place much reliance on the findings when arguing to have his corruption charges – which emanate from the arms deal – struck off the roll.
He added that even the high court, in order to make a ruling, could not place much reliance on that part of the evidence, as it was being contested.
The legal challenge comes after Corruption Watch and Right2Know took the matter to court, citing that the findings were based on a procedure that would have not produced undisputed evidence.
The Seriti commission, headed by former Supreme Court Judge Willie Seriti, was appointed by Zuma in October 2011 to investigate whether corruption was involved in the late 1990s multibillion-rand arms deal.
This came after sustained pressure from anti-corruption groups, politicians and individuals to have the matter probed.
“The Pietermaritzburg High Court, which is hearing Zuma’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution, will not be able to rely on the Seriti report because the matter is being challenged,” Naidoo said.
He added that it would be a setback for Zuma and his legal team should the findings be set aside by the court.
While David Lewis, the executive director of Corruption Watch, said they had not decided whether they would like to have a fresh commission or have the Hawks and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) probing corruption allegations emanating from the arms deal, they believed that the procedure used to obtain evidence during the Seriti commission was not reliable enough to produce credible findings, hence their October 2016 decision to approach the courts for relief, and to have the right procedures put in place.
“The procedure was not the right one, and there were findings which are now being used by Zuma to challenge the NPA’s decision to prosecute him,” Lewis said.
Thami Nkosi of Right 2 Know, joint litigants in the matter, said their stand was clear: they wanted the NPA to prosecute cases which were already before them, and for the Hawks to dig for more evidence and make arrests.
“We have always been clear that a new commission would be costly for us as a country.
“So what we are saying is that since the Hawks have the capacity and the resources to take on the matter, they must deal with this case. They must look at the cases that are ready and start prosecuting people, while investigating the others,” Nkosi said.
According to him, they were still going to meet their lawyers in the wake of Ramaphosa’s decision.
ANC spokesperson Dakota Legoete and Zuma’s spokesperson, Vukile Mathabela, had not responded by publication deadline.