Hawks to send Zuma perjury case to NPA
● The Hawks have concluded their investigation of a perjury charge laid against former president Jacob Zuma for allegedly lying under oath.
The case relates to an affidavit Zuma filed in court in 2016 in his bid to prevent former public protector Thuli Madonsela from releasing her report on state capture.
Zuma claimed in his court papers that Madonsela had not afforded him an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. It was later found that Madonsela had, in fact, interviewed Zuma.
The DA then laid a charge of perjury against the former president.
Hawks spokesperson Lloyd Ramovha said on Friday the elite crime-fighting unit had concluded its investigation into the matter and the docket would soon be sent to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for a decision on whether to prosecute Zuma.
“It is, however, important to always keep in mind that the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation [Hawks] upholds the constitution of the country in that we do not mention names of accused or those being investigated before they are brought before the court of law,” he said.
The Sunday Times has seen correspondence from the Hawks’ serious economic offences unit requesting a meeting with DA leaders to address “requests from a prosecutor related to the case docket”.
Mabine Seabe, the DA’s acting executive director of communications, said the party is pleased that there is progress in the case.
“The wheels of justice are moving. We would also like for the SAPS and the NPA to act on other charges laid against a litany of other individuals who have misled and stolen from the people of South Africa,” said Seabe.
The perjury case arises from Zuma’s failed attempt to interdict the finalisation and release of Madonsela’s “State of Capture” report in October 2016. He had sought relief from the high court in Pretoria.
In his affidavit, Zuma stated that “should it later transpire that the public protector produced a final report without affording me my right to just administrative action, then in that event the report should be released”.
He further stated that in those circumstances he still had the right to review the findings of the report.
He later applied to the court to put the application on hold and lodged an amended relief application in which he said that if the report was finalised and signed, it should not be released.
Zuma claimed that his first application had contained a “typing error” and that his intention was to say the report should not be released.
The DA, however, argued that Zuma had lied to the court and that his amended relief was an attempt to abuse court process. The party accused him of a transparent attempt to delay and frustrate the release of the public protector’s report.