Jacob Zuma - Corruption Charges

Corruption Charges

Zuma became embroiled in a corruption related controversy, one of many, after his financial advisor, Schabir Shaik, was charged with corruption and fraud. Bulelani Ngcuka, the national director of Public Prosecutions at the time, investigated both Zuma and the Chief Whip of the ANC, Tony Yengeni, after allegations of abuse of power were levelled against them. This concerned improper influence in the controversial arms deal, and the question of financial benefit as a result of such influence. While Yengeni was found guilty, the case was dropped against Zuma, with Ngcuka stating, "...that there was prima facie evidence of corruption, but insufficient to win the case in court". Ngcuka moved to private practice after criticism from the ANC over this incident.

In 2004, Zuma became a key figure mentioned in the Schabir Shaik trial. Schabir Shaik, a Durban businessman and his financial advisor, was questioned over bribery in the course of the purchase of Valour class frigates for the South African Navy, a proposed waterfront development in Durban, and lavish spending on Zuma's residence in Nkandla. In the trial Shaik was shown to have solicited a bribe of R500 000 per annum for Zuma in return for Zuma's support for the defence contractor Thomson CSF, documented in the infamous "encrypted fax". On 2 June 2005, Shaik was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Judge Hilary Squires elaborates in detail on the numerous transactions that transpired between Zuma and Shaik, summarising with "all the accused companies were used at one time or another to pay sums of money to Jacob Zuma". The media mis-quoted Squires with the phrase "A generally corrupt relationship" (existed between Zuma and Shaik), whereas these exact words do not appear in the court transcripts. To the defence of the originators of this phrase, the full transcript of the judgment against Shaik actually does mention Zuma 471 times, uses word "corrupt" or "corruption" 54 times, and contains 12 sentences with both the word "corrupt" and the name "Zuma". Media sources later switched to the phrase "mutually beneficial symbiosis", from the judgment's paragraph 235: "It would be flying in the face of commonsense and ordinary human nature to think that he did not realise the advantages to him of continuing to enjoy Zuma's goodwill to an even greater extent than before 1997; and even if nothing was ever said between them to establish the mutually beneficial symbiosis that the evidence shows existed, the circumstances of the commencement and the sustained continuation thereafter of these payments, can only have generated a sense of obligation in the recipient."

After twelve days of intense media speculation about his future, President Thabo Mbeki relieved Zuma of his duties as deputy president on 14 June 2005. Mbeki told a joint sitting of parliament that "in the interest of the honourable Deputy President, the government, our young democratic system and our country, it would be best to release the honourable Jacob Zuma from his responsibilities as Deputy President of the republic and member of the cabinet." Zuma then resigned as a Member of Parliament.

In the aftermath of the Shaik trial, Zuma was formally charged with corruption by the National Prosecuting Authority. The case was struck from the roll of the Pietermaritzburg High Court after the prosecution's application for a postponement (petitioned in order to allow the NPA to secure admissible forms of documentation required as evidence) was dismissed. In dismissing the application for postponement the Court rendered moot the defence's application for a permanent stay of proceedings which would prevent Zuma from being criminally prosecuted.

Zuma's legal team continued to delay proceedings and in spite of Zuma's claim that he desired the matter to appear in court, succeeded in making critical evidence unavailable to the court resulting in the prosecution making an application for postponement on the set date. As the prosecution was not ready the case was struck from the roll after the prosecution's application for a postponement was dismissed, however Zuma's legal team was unsuccessful in its attempts to have the courts grant a permanent stay of proceedings (which would have rendered Zuma immune to prosecution on the charges). This left Zuma open to being recharged with corruption as soon as the NPA completed preparing its case.

On 8 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the National Prosecuting Authority with respect to appeals relating to various search and seizure exercises performed by the and rejected four appeals made by Zuma's defence team. This ruling pertained to the National Prosecuting Authority obtaining the personal diary of senior member of a French arms company, which may have provided information relating to Zuma's possible corrupt practices during the awarding of an arms deal.

On 28 December 2007, the Scorpions served Zuma an indictment to stand trial in the High Court on various counts of racketeering, money laundering, corruption and fraud. A conviction and sentence to a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year would have rendered Zuma ineligible for election to the South African Parliament and consequently he would not have been eligible to serve as President of South Africa.