Poor health a Stalingrad strategy?
Prosecutor Downer seems to think so
Is Jacob Zuma’s poor health part of the infamous Stalingrad strategy?
State advocate Billy Downer SC seems to think so. Downer uttered the word that has become synonymous with the former president’s defence yesterday when the state opposed a request for an adjournment to allow for Zuma’s lawyers to gather information about his “so-called medical condition” which prevented him from attending court proceedings.
However, before he could explain further, judge Dhaya Pillay cut off Downer and began her judgment in which she ordered that a warrant of arrest be issued for Zuma and stayed until his next court appearance on May 6.
In 2007, Zuma’s then advocate Kemp J Kemp told the Durban High Court: “We have adopted a Stalingrad strategy in response to this prosecution ... we will fight [the state] in every street, in every house, and in every room.”
Since then, under instruction of Zuma’s long-time attorney Michael Hulley, his defence team tried every possible legal avenue to prevent him from being prosecuted.
Zuma is no longer represented by Kemp or Hulley.
His new lawyer Daniel Mantsha was yesterday at pains to explain why the defence did not furnish the state with medical evidence to prove why Zuma was unfit to be in court.
The defence sent the NPA a letter on January 15 stating that the former statesman was ill and therefore would not attend his upcoming court proceedings. Downer told the court that the state immediately responded with a request for medical certificates and more information so it could “form a position” on Zuma’s absence.
The defence did not respond to the request. However yesterday, Mantsha told the court that Zuma had two “major surgeries” during the week of January 7.
He went on to explain that it was public knowledge that Zuma had been ill, hospitalised and was now in Cuba for medical treatment.
Judge Pillay responded that the court relied on evidence and not public knowledge. She said Zuma’s absence was a “troublesome” issue that had cropped up in yesterday’s proceedings.
“If an accused is not in attendance, if an accused has failed to produce a medical certificate, and in this instance, counsel for Mr Zuma was notified in advance in the middle of January – that this document or that sound evidence is required to justify his absence from court and without that evidence, this court cannot do anything else but issue a warrant of arrest,” she said.
Pillay said the order would not bar the parties from engaging with each other should they find “medical evidence that is to the satisfaction to the prosecution that Mr Zuma is indeed unwell”.
When the court convenes on May 6, both the state and defence are expected to know the outcome of Zuma and his coaccused, French arms manufacturer Thales’s appeal bids against last year’s judgment which denied them a stay of prosecution.
Zuma has appealed at the Supreme Court of Appeals while Thales has gone straight to the Constitutional Court.
Thales is accused of agreeing to pay Zuma a yearly R500,000 bribe for protection from an investigation into the controversial multibillionrand arms deal.