Decision not admission of guilt
Former president Jacob Zuma’s decision not to cross-examine state capture inquiry witnesses should not be confused with an admission of guilt, experts said on Sunday. Zuma has chosen to not seek to cross examine any of the witnesses who have so far testified before the state capture inquiry, in direct contrast to the Gupta family.
Does this mean Zuma admits the truth of the evidence against him? Not at all, say experts.
While the Guptas say they have “objective evidence” to place before the Zondo Commission of Inquiry to dispute the testimony against them, Zuma has opted to stay out of it. He said he would not seek to state his version of events on record through cross examination – as he does not believe any of the testimony implicates him in any criminal or ethical wrongdoing.
But legal insiders say not too much should be read into Zuma’s decision not to participate. Lawyer James Grant stressed that the inquiry did not require Zuma to counter the evidence against him through cross examination.
“Cross examination [in an inquiry] is just damage control.
“In a court of law, you must allow the witness to comment [on your version]. Here, there is no obligation to cross examine, only the right.”
Grant said Zuma did risk the prospect of negative credibility findings being made against him because of cross examine.
Attorney Ulrich Roux agrees: “The implication would essentially be that Zuma wouldn’t be able to test the witnesses’ versions and put their versions forward to the witnesses.
“This means that the credibility of the witnesses won’t be challenged and the chairperson [deputy chief justice] could therefore place more weight on what the witnesses testify.”
Zuma’s lawyer, Daniel Lungisani Mantsha, wrote to his failure to the inquiry after Zuma was notified that he may be implicated by the evidence of former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas, ex-ANC MP Vytjie Mentor, current and former government communications heads Themba Maseko and Phumla Williams and former public enterprises minister Barbara Hogan.
“We have consulted our client . . . We are satisfied that nothing in the aforementioned witnesses’ statements implicates or may implicate our client in the infringement of the aforementioned statutes, policies of government and relevant ethical codes,” said Manthsa.
Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo will this week rule on whether the Guptas can cross examine the state capture witnesses who have implicated them.