Disagreements raging as Zuma returns to court

THERE are massive disagreements as South Africa’s former president Jacob Zuma today returns to the Pietermaritzburg High Court to state why he should not be prosecuted for corruption.

Among the simmering disagreements is whether Zuma’s hearing should be virtual or not, and whether or not such a hearing is constitutionally sound.

Over the weekend, the Jacob Zuma Foundation insisted that, in a criminal trial, all accused should be present in court and, if that’s not the case, there should be exceptional circumstances to explain why.

Regarding the virtual hearing, which means no parties should need to be physically present in court, the Jacob Zuma Foundation said the “sensitive” hearing should be shelved if the situation does not allow for it.

Zuma is currently jailed at Estcourt prison, where he is serving his 15-month sentence imposed by the Concourt for defying its instruction for him to appear before the Zondo Commission.

In the application, Zuma argues that advocate Billy Downer SC, of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), cannot lead his prosecution, as he has proven to be a tainted figure who has allowed politics to influence him and who had allegedly shared information with US spies from the CIA.

Downer has denied all such accusations. If granted his wish, Zuma wants the NPA to eventually stop his prosecution and the matter to be thrown out of court, as he would not be fairly tried.

Regarding the virtual hearing, the foundation said the case should be shelved if the situation does not allow for a physical hearing. “The foundation is concerned that the directions issued by the court in Pietermaritzburg to hear the matter virtually, are not consistent with provisions of both the CPA and the Constitution, as set out below. The matter must be heard physically on July 19 or later, when the country is calmer,” the foundation said on Twitter late on Saturday.

The foundation even quoted some sections of the CPA, which says all cases, unless otherwise stated, should be heard with all accused in court.

Spokesperson for the foundation Mzwanele Manyi said Zuma’s lawyers would legally challenge the directive to have the matter heard through virtual platforms.

He added that they want Zuma to be driven from his Estcourt prison cell to Pietermaritzburg, to be present in court when the application is argued on Monday.

“Yes, it's a criminal case. Both the constitution and even the Criminal Procedure Act direct so,” Manyi told Independent Media on Sunday.

“Remember, at times, lawyers need to consult the client to check the veracity of some statements being made by the prosecutor. You can't stop the prosecutor and ask for adjournment to call your client in Estcourt,” Manyi said.

Yesterday, the spokesperson of the NPA Mthunzi Mhaga said they were aware that Zuma and his legal team were against the virtual sitting and they were ready to oppose that.

“Yesterday, yes, our prosecutors have received them. Still working on our replying affidavits. We will oppose the application,” Mhaga said yesterday.