By Prof B Dikela Majuqwana
Former president Jacob Zuma is embroiled in one of the longest corruption cases in South Africa involving a former head of state, in recent memory. The case was brought against him by the state through the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
The origins of the case is the notorious Arms Deal defence procurement exercise, dating from the first term of the presidency of Thabo Mbeki (1999 – 2004) when Zuma was his deputy. Zuma is alleged to have accepted bribes amounting to R500 000 from a French defence equipment manufacturer, Thales.
In June 2005, Zuma was unceremoniously deposed as deputy president by then-president Mbeki, to be replaced by Phumzile MlamboNgcuka, then a minister of minerals and energy and, in many respects, a junior to Zuma. Much of the current instability and political turbulence in the government and the ruling ANC can be traced directly back to the events during the first term of Mbeki’s presidency, in particular, the origins of the corruption trial against Zuma.
To the surprise of many, Zuma showed his mettle and proved his fighting spirit by rising from the ashes to win during the party’s elective conference in 2007 and, subsequently, the national elections in 2009 and 2014 to become president of the Republic.
Therefore, from where I am standing, there is a lot invested by Zuma’s enemies in the “Arms Deal corruption” trial. In 2018, Zuma left the presidency and retired from politics. Since then, his life has been one of being hounded and persecuted by his enemies in the ANC, the media, some opposition parties, and some in business circles.
They condemned his presidency as “nine wasted years”, a hateful phrase that comes close to the idea of throwing away the baby with the bath water. One of Zuma’s latest sins was to walk away from the proceedings of the recent Zondo Commission, leading to the Constitutional Court sentencing him to 15 months imprisonment, disregarding his late years.
That Zuma enjoys any freedom today is because he applied for a parole hearing, which was successful, but this, too, is being contested. It is against this background that we have Zuma taking legal action to protect himself against what he sees as a breach of his personal rights and freedom by the men who should be trusted to uphold the law.
Zuma laid criminal charges at Pietermaritzburg police station, against advocate Billy Downer and Karyn Maughan, who works for News24, for the leaking of his medical records.
The NPA’s refusal to prosecute led Zuma to opt for a private prosecution application which the NPA granted. Zuma’s bone of contention is Section 41(6) of the NPA Act. He is alleging its contravention. The case before the court is the motive behind Downer’s release of court documents without proper authority.
The case will be heard next month. Mzwanele Manyi, representing the Jacob Zuma Foundation said: “It was not a public document and publication was delayed because of this. The issue is the timing of the release of this information. A prosecutor is not at liberty to release documents that have not been made public.”
NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga has declared his support for Downer as if he had a choice to do otherwise. He said: “The NPA and its leadership fully supports Downer as we believe that these charges are without merit. They are only designed to intimidate him in the prosecution of Mr Zuma and for the delay of the trial. The private prosecution amounts to abuse of process”.
Incidentally, the same Downer is the State prosecutor in the Arms Deal trial against Zuma that is under way. There are many, including the NPA, who believe that Zuma is taking action against Downer and Maughan as a delaying tactic to frustrate his trial.
What they are not saying is whether Zuma stands any chance in doing so if he is protecting his rights. Does the NPA believe, as many others do, that he will fail? Some have made reference to the recent case involving private prosecution brought by AfriForum against the EFF for insisting on singing the popular liberation song “Kill the Boer”.
AfriForum lost the case, and many believe Zuma’s private prosecution will suffer the same fate. However, it does not follow that because a case, if brought to court by private prosecution, therefore must fail. What should count are the merits of the case. I have tried to paint a brief picture of the history of Zuma in politics, his struggle to survive humiliation by his comrades, and the ridicule of his presidency by his enemies.
This background does suggest that the behaviour of the NPA and some of its employees, who might have many axes to grind, that information of a personal nature is quickly rushed to the online media for the attention of the public, is far from innocent.
But the question is whether the court will resist being truthful and neutral under the current circumstances. Add to this the fact that members of the public are very much aware that the NPA is not blessed with a strong sense of justice, nor does it enjoy people with the right competence to do their work.
One can go further to say that any honest observer can see in the behaviour of Downer and Maughan a possible lack of competence and a motivation to do an injustice against Zuma each time the opportunity presents itself.
* Majuqwana Head of Engineering at the University of Zululand.