Zuma faces new charges as Mauritius request gets go-ahead

Asked whether he expected his client to be charged, Zuma’s lawyer Michael Hulley told The Citizen: ‘Clearly that is the State’s intent. Everything tells me that they intend to prosecute.’ And National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson Panyaza Lesufi told The Mercury the ruling had taken the State ‘one step closer to this aspect’ but the decision on further charges would be guided by the National Director of Public Prosecutions. ‘We want closure on this chapter as soon as possible. There have been lots of obstacles,’ he said. A report on the IoL site says the High Court approved a bid by prosecutors to request documents that Mauritian authorities seized from a local branch of a French arms contractor and which they believe could show Zuma was involved in a bribe scheme. Prosecutors had argued that the documents in Mauritius could play an important role in the case. Among the documents that the NPA wants is a diary in which a former head of the French firm, Thint, made a note of a meeting he allegedly had with Zuma and Shaik agreeing to a bribe for Zuma. Prosecutors have argued the diary and other documents would confirm that a bribe for Zuma was discussed and agreed. Full report in The Citizen Full report on the IoL site

Judge Phillip Levensohn rejected Zuma and Thint\'s assertion that legal proceedings against them were still pending and the NPA was still bound by a March 2006 order issued by Judge Pete Combrinck that any letter of request would have to be granted by a trial judge. ‘In my view when a case is struck off the roll prior to plea the criminal proceedings pending are terminated,’ he said, according to a report on the IoL site. Levensohn also rejected Thint and Zuma\'s assertion that the State was not seeking the information for use in an investigation as described in terms of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act. The defence had asserted that the original request to Mauritius for the documents in 2001 was ‘legally flawed’. Levensohn said: ‘In my judgment this is a matter which should be ventilated in Mauritius before its High Court. There would be much to be said for the view that the attack on the search and seizure of 2001 comes very belatedly.’ The judge found against Zuma and Thint on all the technical legal issues they raised. Full report on the IoL site

Zuma and Thint plan to take the matter further. Hulley said Zuma would lodge an application for leave to appeal against Levensohn’s decision within the next week. According to a Mail & Guardian Online report, Hulley said Zuma was ‘disappointed’ with Levensohn\'s decision. However, he said it ‘would be improper and premature’ to indicate which points of Levensohn\'s ruling would be contested in an appeal. The application would be lodged next week, probably on Wednesday. Should Levensohn reject this, Zuma may petition the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein. Ajay Sooklal, the attorney for Thint, also confirmed that the company would lodge an appeal. Sooklal said: ‘We are of the view that the judgment merits an appeal.’ He, too, would not be drawn on which points of Levensohn\'s ruling were contestable. Full Mail & Guardian Online report

The ruling follows another setback to Zuma’s efforts to avoid possible prosecution, after the Pretoria High Court last week granted the NPA the right to request information from banks and lawyers in the UK. Zuma’s lawyers were not informed about that application, which Hulley described as being pursued in a ‘bizarre’ manner. Yesterday, according to a report in The Mercury, he received a copy of the State’s application papers from Scorpions’ prosecutor Anton Steynberg. This application would also be the subject of a legal challenge. Hulley drew attention to the fact that while the State did not have to give Zuma notice of such applications, it was a ‘courtesy’ that had been done in the Mauritian document application. Full report in the Mercury (subscription needed)