One ruling from horrific déjà vu
FORMER president Jacob Zuma is blessed with a magnificent sense of irony. He was first charged in relation to the arms deal in 2005. Despite repeatedly stating that he wished for his day in court – rather than being judged in the court of public opinion – he has used fair means and foul, including blowing over R15-million of taxpayers’ money in legal fees, to avoid the charges. And what a battle it has been. He has bullied out of office efficient prosecutors in the so-called independent National Prosecuting Authority and ensured it is staffed with those more amenable to his own agenda of staying out of jail. The question of who should head the NPA itself resulted in numerous legal clashes. The cost of these sidebattles is not included in the hefty R15million total of his other legal costs. In fact, if one factors in the R17-million he dished out to a former National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Mxolisi Nxasana to induce him to leave, the costs mount up.
Nxasana’s settlement and departure and the subsequent appointment of Shaun Abrahams has been nullified by the courts.
The bottom line is that 13 years have passed, during which Zuma managed to lose every single court battle, bar one, to avoid being charged. The only case he won was the 2008 ruling by Judge Chris Nicholson in which the decision to charge him was set aside. This victory, though sweet, was brief, with the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissing Nicholson’s decision in a judgment which dripped with contempt.
Finally, with Zuma’s presidential cape ripped from his shoulders, Abrahams reluctantly found the courage to heed the courts and reinstate the charges against Zuma. Hopefully it will be his final act before he, too, departs the stage. But, somewhere along the line we seem to have ended up back where it all began. The first indication of this was the recycling of his 2009 representations on why he should not be charged. He again claimed his prosecution was characterised by prosecutorial and political manipulation. The SCA found differently when it set aside Nicholson’s judgment. Zuma also claimed a history of irrational decisions made by various national directors of the NPA. Again, the only irrationality the courts have consistently found through years of litigation is the irrationality of the charges being withdrawn in the first place. Perhaps the greatest irony was Zuma citing “inexplicable delays” of over 15 years in bringing the matter to trial.
This from a man who has utilised every resource from his position of considerable power to leverage those delays. What is clear is that Zuma – who still apparently enjoys the full benefit of the public purse for all his legal fees due to some opaque deal struck with former President Thabo Mbeki – intends to recycle the whole gamut of challenges he has already traversed, starting with an application to strike his matter from the roll. The only hope we have of avoiding this horrific sense of déjà vu will be the success of the pending court challenge to the legality of the agreement struck between himself and Mbeki.
This man deserves his day in court – but not at our expense.