Lawyer decries EFF’s ‘vendetta’ against Zuma
Former president Jacob Zuma’s lawyer has accused EFF leader Julius Malema of pursuing an unjust personal vendetta against him – one that includes trying to block continued state funding for his corruption trial defence.
“The [EFF’s] pursuit against Mr Zuma is undoubtedly influenced by politics more than principle – if not a personal vendetta of Mr Malema,” attorney Lungisani Mantsha stated in court papers filed on Friday.
“This is evidenced by the [EFF’s] constant pronouncements of labelling Mr Zuma a criminal and demanding that he be imprisoned.”
He further adds that stopping state funding of Zuma’s defence now would interfere with Mr Zuma’s fair trial rights.
“It would simply be unfair to order that the funding that has supported his defence against these vicious allegations is withdrawn at this stage when he is starting to prepare for the proceedings.”
Mantsha was responding to a legal bid by the EFF to overturn a 2006 deal between Zuma, the state attorney and then president Thabo Mbeki to pay the costs of Zuma’s defence in his corruption trial. Under that deal, Zuma agreed to pay the money spent on his legal fees if he was convicted.
The EFF argues that Zuma was not legally entitled to such funding, and wants him and his former attorney Michael Hulley to repay the millions spent on multiple fruitless challenges to his prosecution.
Mantsha says the application is misconceived, as the corruption Zuma is accused of is directly linked to his official role and position in government – and he is therefore entitled to receive state funding of his defence.
Zuma is facing charges in connection to his relationship with his former financial advisor Schabir Shaik, who was convicted of keeping the then deputy president of the ANC and later deputy president of South Africa on a corrupt retainer. In exchange for multiple payments, Zuma allegedly used his power and position to further Shaik’s business interests.
Zuma also stands accused of accepting a R500,000 a year bribe, facilitated by Shaik, from French arms company Thint – in exchange for his protection of the company from an investigation into the arms deal.
“The allegations are self-evidently that Mr Zuma abused or inappropriately used his official powers and duties for the benefit of Shaik, his companies and the companies which allegedly attempted to or bribed him,” Mantsha said.
Mantsha says the EFF seems to be blind-sighted by its own antipathy towards [Zuma] as a result of which it fails to see the obvious.
“I admit that Mr Malema is not bringing this application personally, but that the EFF – his party – is. However, he had knowledge of the decision(s) to fund Mr Zuma when his party was formed and if he was then interested he could have questioned the decision as far back as July 2013 or soon thereafter.
“The EFF’s contention that it only knew of the decision later or became curious of Mr Zuma’s affordability of the legal costs in February 2018 is simply untrue. It is intended to mislead this court.”