Zuma’s warning to Abrahams is merely a ‘delaying tactic’

PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma’s warning to prosecutions boss Shaun Abrahams and two other NPA officials of their possible suspension, pending an inquiry into their fitness for office, is “a sham” that makes no sense unless it is a delaying tactic.

This is the argument made by Francis Antonie on behalf of NGOs Freedom Under Law and the Helen Suzman Foundation in response to affidavits from Zuma, Abrahams and the prosecutors who took the decision last month to charge Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and two former Sars officials with fraud.

Zuma had, in arguing there was no case for the NPA officers to answer, “demonstrated that his call for representations is in fact a sham”, Antonie argued, since it was clear he had already made up his mind.

The president had also “crafted a timetable” giving the three officials until November 28 – four days after the date set down for the hearing of the matter – which “by design or otherwise” delayed the need for him to take a decision on whether or not to suspend them pending an inquiry.

Antonie’s affidavit suggested that, far from throwing Abrahams under the bus, Zuma issued the warning statement to the three so he could argue in court that the application by the NGOs for a court order instituting an inquiry and placing them on suspension was premature.

He argued the president’s failure to take a decision within a reasonable period in a matter of such urgent national importance could be reviewed by the court, and that while Zuma seemed to think he had to consider the merits of the allegations against Abra- hams, North Gauteng director of public prosecutions Sibongile Mzinyathi and head of the priority crimes litigation unit Torie Pretorius before deciding whether or not to initiate an inquiry, the question was simply whether there were grounds for one.

Given Abrahams had announced the charges knowing full well what the impact would be on the economy, while lacking any evidence to support the charge of fraud, the only possible conclusion was the three were incompetent or had acted with an ulterior motive, or both, Antonie said.

This was in any case the public perception of them and every day they remained in office caused further damage to the reputation of the NPA.

This alone was sufficient grounds for an inquiry to be held and for them to be suspended pending the outcome.

He said while Zuma and the officials argued they had to be given the right to be heard before the decision was taken this right would be given to them at the inquiry, when they would have the chance to clear their names.

Shaun Abrahams