JZ’s papers to NPA closed

STRONG CASE FOR DISCLOSURE

Fears that NPA head will use mask of nondisclosure to let his boss off the hook.

Despite the many reasons for revealing President Jacob Zuma’s representations to the National Prosecuting Authority to avoid prosecution, South Africans may never know the reasons why National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams decides to prosecute him or not.

“The approach is effectively that it must be recognised that without prejudice, communication must be confidential from third parties,” said Wits associate professor of law James Grant, a practising advocate

The reason for protecting confidentiality was to allow people to engage productively to try and settle their grievances out of court, he added.

“Against that, we have the public’s right to know, which would actually carry a lot of weight in this particular case,” he noted, adding: “In this particular case at least, the interests the parties have in resolving their issues has to be weighed up against the public’s right to know.”

Abrahams has indicated he could take up to two weeks to make the decision about his boss, who has asked for submissions from Abrahams in the recent past for why he shouldn’t be suspended.

Without publication of the papers from the president, who is the most public of public servants using public funds for his defence, there is fear Abrahams might use the smokescreen of confidentiality to mask a decision to again decline to prosecute.

Zuma faces 18 charges in total: 12 counts of fraud, four of corruption, one of money laundering and one of racketeering, stemming from 783 payments of more than R4 million allegedly made to and on behalf of him by Schabir Shaik and his Nkobi Group between 1995 and 2006.

There is one option left and it pertains to the court order obtained by the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac). In December, the High Court in Pretoria ruled that Abrahams could not withdraw the charges against Zuma pending the outcome of a Constitutional Court ruling. “Should he decide he is not going to prosecute, we would want to challenge that position on the basis of the findings of the Gauteng High Court that Mr Abrahams is compromised, that he has shown a lack of impartiality in dealing with the president,” said Casac’s Lawson Naidoo.

“This is further evidenced by the fact that he bent over backwards yesterday to receive the representations at 9pm.

“The NPA is part of the justice system and one would assume the NPA would function as courts do and have a cut-off by 4pm.

“Judges don’t sit in chambers waiting for parties to submit affidavits at 9pm. I would therefore see no reason why Mr Abrahams should have done so in respect of the president.”

Mr Abrahams has shown a lack of impartiality.