Zuma faces legal headaches after he finally calls it quits
In the face of mounting uncertainty about his political future, President Jacob Zuma faces snowballing legal battles that have likely been the biggest influence on his stubborn refusal to vacate office.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is yet to say when it will announce whether or not it will prosecute 783 counts of corruption, fraud and money laundering against Zuma, saying the team set up to consider the president’s representations is still looking at submissions.
Zuma last week made fresh representations to the NPA as to why he should not face corruption charges anew. He is apparently questioning the credibility of the KPMG auditor who compiled a 2006 forensic report that saw Zuma being charged with fraud and corruption. The charges were withdrawn in 2009.
The detailed arguments of
Zuma’s new representations have, however, not been made public. His lawyer, Michael Hulley, refused to comment on Thursday and referred questions regarding Zuma’s representations to the NPA.
Although the NPA has said the details of Zuma’s submission are confidential, the Democratic Alliance has asked to be given access to the arguments because it is the main litigant in the case.
NPA spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku said the request by the DA was still being considered. He also said he did not know when the NPA would announce its decision on Zuma, despite initial plans to have the matter concluded within two to three weeks.
“There is no timeline. The NDPP [national director of public prosecutions] will engage the team [of prosecutors] and after that, he will then be in a position to brief the nation,” Mfaku said. “At this stage you must remember that the team will be looking at the submissions and, based on that, they will advise how much time they would need.”
Legal analyst Phephelaphi Dube said it was unlikely that Zuma’s questioning of the KPMG audit report would be enough to sway the NPA against reinstating the charges against him.
“I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on whether the author of the report is discredited because there are other factors that would warrant a reinstitution of those charges,” Dube said.
“I would think that that issue is a red herring because we need to consider the fact that Schabir Shaik was convicted and did serve a little bit of time. The real concern, I would think, is the passage of time and whether evidence still exists and if there are still witnesses,” she added.
The protection Zuma may hope to enjoy through the apparent allegiance of NPA boss Shaun Abrahams is also under threat and is the subject of a separate legal battle. Zuma will appeal a December high court ruling that set aside Abrahams’s 2015 appointment, declaring it unlawful because it followed the improper removal of his predecessor Mxolisi Nxasana through a R17.3-million golden handshake.
Nxasana has accused Zuma of lying about him willingly vacating his position and will also appeal the high court ruling for him to repay his severance package.
Meanwhile, uncertainty over Zuma’s future has led to speculation that he might intentionally delay the work of the commission of inquiry into state capture by holding off on signing its governing regulations.
Last month, Zuma set terms of reference for the inquiry, which will be chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, but is yet to complete the final step of signing off the regulations, which will allow the process to proceed officially.
Dube said that, based on Zuma’s previous conduct when it came to legal matters, it was likely that he would attempt to frustrate the commission’s work.
“I think if we consider how he has behaved in the past on matters of litigation, it would suggest that he does abuse processes in order to buy time. So, reading into that, one would suggest that it is a possibility,” she said.
“And I think the Pretoria high court handing down the punitive costs [in the spy tapes appeal] was an indication that the court was aware that this is a clear strategy of his.”