‘I didn’t know’
DEFENCE: ‘I DIDN’T KNOW; I THOUGHT THAT’S HOW YOU DO BUSINESS’
Former president Jacob Zuma is taking the one route open to him: pleading ignorance, claiming he thought it was simply the way to do business, and he could get off scot-free on all graft charges, a law expert says.
It’s up to former president to convince court he was ignorant – and he may get off, says legal expert.
Stripped of his presidency, facing criminal charges, and a judicial commission of inquiry, Jacob Zuma has a long road ahead. But he could get off scot-free – if the court believes his claims that he was simply ignorant, rather than corrupt.
Last year, Zuma’s legal team conceded in the Supreme Court of Appeal that the 2009 decision by former acting national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), Mokotedi Mpshe, to drop charges against him was irrational.
Notwithstanding that, Zuma asserting he didn’t know he was in a quid pro quo relationship with Schabir Shaik was a valid defence in South African law, Wits associate professor of law advocate James Grant told The Citizen yesterday.
“What Zuma is doing is actually fairly clever because he’s using the one defence which I think is open to him,” said Grant.
“Which is to say: ‘Yes, all of these things happened as a matter of fact, I received the money and Schaik paid me all of these things and gave me all sorts of wonderful benefits.
“He was being a crook, but I didn’t know he wanted me to do special things for him. I thought it was just how one does business.’”
On Friday, National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Shaun Abrahams said Zuma had claimed through his lawyers he had had no intent to commit any of the crimes listed.
Intent is a legal requirement to prove a contravention of law.
Zuma faces 12 counts of fraud, two of corruption, one of money laundering, and one of racketeering, related to 783 payments allegedly made to and on behalf of Zuma by Shaik and his Nkobi Group, valued at more than R4 million. His co-accused Thint, a company in the field of armaments supply, faces two counts of corruption.
“Our way of life will be on trial, because he is going to call into question how we conduct every- day business,” Grant said.
Pierre de Vos, Claude Leon Foundation chair in Constitutional Governance at the University of Cape Town, said on Twitter, Zuma’s legal team would have to review then NPA boss Mokotedi Mpshe’s decision “to charge as that is the one in force now”.
However, said Grant, there was nothing stopping the NPA from proceeding with the case as reviews did not suspend it.
“Zuma’s team would have to take both decisions on review.”
With the NPA having tracked down 218 witnesses, NPA spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku said yesterday the KwaZulu-Natal director of public prosecutions, Moipone Noko, would approve a date with Zuma’s attorney, Michael Hulley.
Noko will also appoint the prosecutor in the matter. Senior advocate Billy Downer – who ensured Shaik’s conviction and pushed for Zuma to go on trial – is a likely candidate, being intimately acquainted with the matter.