Zuma-era woes not my fault – Judge Nicholson

The judge blamed by many critics for opening the door for Jacob Zuma to become President through a controversial 2008 judgment stands by his decision, reports leading legal writer Carmel Rickard. Retired KwaZulu-Natal Judge Chris Nicholson, who is writing a book that deals with his controversial judgment and related issues, made it clear he is 'unrepentant'. In a summary of the book's outline, made available to Legalbrief, he says his intention is to 'defend my judgment and set the record straight'. He said he was partly prompted to write the book because of continuing 'harsh and strident' criticism by members of the public and the legal profession. These criticisms created and maintained a number of 'myths' about his findings. Among these was the claim that he was 'soft on corruption' and that by setting aside the decision to prosecute Zuma he was to blame for the troubles experienced by SA during the Zuma era. On the contrary, said Nicholson: 'In my judgment I said, quoting other authority, that corruption was like a "cancer, eating away remorselessly at the fabric of corporate probity and extending its baleful effect into all aspects of administrative functions, whether state official or private-sector manager".' Nicholson's judgment set aside decisions by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue a number of bribery and corruption charges against Zuma.

In his judgment, overturned later by the Supreme Court of Appeal, Nicholson found there had been 'political meddling' behind the decision, and questioned why Zuma had not been charged along with Schabir Shaik, convicted and sentenced for essentially the same charges as those due to be brought against Zuma. 'The bizarre charging of Shaik and not Zuma brings to mind the old apartheid days when black women were charged with immorality for sleeping with white men, while the latter were let off scot-free. The courts were uniform in their condemnation of such a practice "and for good reason",' said Nicholson in his outline. 'Perhaps the most persistent myth was that I decided that because of the political interference Zuma should be acquitted.' This was not so, said Nicholson. He had quoted, with approval, a case suggesting that in such a matter 'the remedy for political interference was to remove the prosecution team that was subject to political interference and not to let the accused go free'. Another myth was that he had let Zuma off all the charges. In fact, however, he had stressed in the judgment that the case 'has nothing to do with the guilt or otherwise of (Zuma), but dealt only with a procedural point relating to Zuma's right to make representations before the National Prosecuting Authority made a decision on whether to charge him again. 'Once these matters are cured the state is at liberty to proceed again.' To critics who asked how he 'could sleep at night' following his decision, he said if his suggestions on how to ensure the independence of the prosecuting authorities had been followed, 'an independent NPA would have prosecuted all the scoundrels that have beset our young democracy and spared us the tragic consequences we have endured'.