Zuma’s ‘animosity’ against journalist Maughan is reason for private prosecution — legal team

Former president Jacob Zuma had developed “extraordinary animosity” towards journalist Karyn Maughan as a consequence of her reporting on his legal matters over 20 years, her advocate, Steven Budlender, argued on Monday.

And this hostility — and Zuma’s quest to silence her and stop her from doing her job — was the motive behind his private prosecution of her, Budlender said.

Maughan and senior state advocate Billy Downer were both in the Pietermaritzburg high court on Monday, their lawyers arguing, in separate applications before a full bench of three judges, that the summons Zuma served on them in September last year should be quashed.

Zuma claims they contravened the NPA Act in that Downer leaked a report disclosing Zuma’s confidential medical condition to Maughan.

The report was submitted to judge Piet Koen, presiding over Zuma’s arms-deal related trial, in an application by Zuma for a postponement.

Koen, who subsequently recused himself from the trial, has already ruled there was nothing confidential in the report.

Budlender said Zuma’s hostility towards Maughan was evident from his affidavit in which he accused her of colluding and conspiring with state prosecutors to perpetuate a false narrative about him.

“This is not a legitimate dispassionate prosecution ... and this is not a genuine attempt to vindicate the rule of law.

“The true purpose, we submit, is to discredit her, silence her and prevent her from reporting on the progress of his criminal trial,” Budlender said.

Before a person can institute a private prosecution, they must first get a certificate of nolle prosequi from the director of public prosecutions.

Budlender said when the summons was first served, that certificate made no mention at all of Maughan.

A second certificate again did not mention Maughan, but only that a decision had been made not to prosecute “anyone” in relation to Zuma’s complaint.

Budlender said Maughan had never been a suspect in the case, so that equally did not apply to her.

“She is not subject to the NPA Act ... she was lumped in [to the private prosecution] because he hoped News24 would pull her off reporting on his case because she was tainted.”

By the time Maughan had reported on the contents of the document, it had been filed three times with the court, once by Zuma’s own attorney, and no-one had claimed any confidentiality, he said.

Advocate Kate Hofmeyr, for the Helen Suzman Foundation, said Zuma’s own documents in the private prosecution pointed to an “ulterior purpose”.

She said the bulk of his statement was a regurgitation of “political” motive arguments he had made over the past 20 years, and had nothing to do with the actual charges.

Zuma’s legal team will respond to the argument today.