Zuma ‘love child’ also faced rape charge

And, says the report, repercussions from those charges led to another probe into Zuma and his financial adviser Schabir Shaik\'s finances, after allegations surfaced that Shaik arranged payments to the alleged victim after she dropped the case. Mziwoxolo Edward Zuma was arrested on October 22, 2000, for allegedly raping a fellow student at the University of Zululand. The charges were withdrawn and, on October 27, Zuma\'s office issued a statement saying the two parties had discussed the matter and resolved it amicably. However, noseweek magazine later claimed there appeared to be a financial inducement attached to this decision. Sabeer Sheik-Ibrahim, the former MD of Kobitech Transport Systems, confirmed this, saying the woman had been receiving about R7 000 a month. Shaik, however, dismissed the claim as ‘absolute nonsense’ and told a Johannesburg newspaper that he showed noseweek editor Martin Welz his company accounts and that Welz was satisfied that no payments were made to the woman. However, Welz told The Witness that this was not true. He said Shaik invited him to see the accounts, but then avoided an appointment they set up for the purpose. Full report in The Witness

Meanwhile, the legal skirmishing in the build up to Zuma’s rape trial continues, with a claim in Business Day. that another court challenge is looming against the Scorpions’ raids on Zuma, his lawyers and alleged financial backers. Lawyers representing businessman Jürgen Kögl in his fight for the return of documents seized from him last year, at the same time Zuma was raided, were emboldened by Durban High Court Judge Noel Hurt’s decision this week ordering the Scorpions to return documents seized from Zuma and lawyer Michael Hulley. ‘The (Hurt) judgment was very significant as the warrants used in all the raids were similar in nature. We are very positive about our challenge,’ said Kögl’s lawyer, Shamima Gabie. The report notes that the ruling could also influence how the unit works in future. Hurt said the warrants under which the raids had been conducted were invalid, which could mean the National Prosecuting Authority will be restricted to building their corruption case against Zuma solely on evidence gathered before the raids when Zuma’s trial starts in July. Also, if Hurt’s decision stands up to appeal, it will set boundaries within which the prosecuting authority and Scorpions can conduct criminal investigations in the future. Full Business Day report

That the warrants obtained by the Scorpions were granted by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe adds an interesting dimension, according to Business Day. It makes the point that earlier this week Ngoepe recused himself from presiding over Zuma’s rape trial after Zuma’s lawyers said their client feared Ngoepe could be biased against him. While Ngoepe rejected this, he accepted the rather broader political link that could be drawn from his role in the two cases. With the benefit of hindsight and Hurt’s ruling – he concluded that the grounds on which the Scorpions had sought and obtained the warrants were too broad and the warrants themselves took no precautions to protect the sanctity of attorney-client privilege and violated Zuma’s rights – Ngoepe’s move now looks particularly astute in a political if not strictly legal sense. For supporters of Zuma, Hurt’s decision vindicates their complaint against the entire legal process that has landed Zuma where he is. They argue that the raids could not have been necessary as Zuma was already charged and were thus designed to humiliate him in the court of public opinion. Moreover, the warrants that authorised the raids were obtained irregularly from Ngoepe, hence the suspicion that the Judge President himself could not handle Zuma fairly. SA now finds itself with a sizeable body of opinion holding that the judiciary, in the form of one of the country’s most senior judges, is playing fast and loose with Zuma’s rights for political reasons. Full Business Day report