NPA accuses Zuma of 'conducting propaganda war'

It has also created a public perception that Zuma will never receive a fair trial. In papers handed to the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Friday in response to Zuma's application to have its decision to prosecute him declared unconstitutional, the Scorpions' senior investigator, Johan du Plooy, said Zuma had loaded his application with 'irrelevant allegations' of political motives against him by three successive prosecuting authority heads to bring 'the institution of the NPA and hence the administration of justice into disrepute'. Describing much of the content of Zuma's affidavit as 'irrelevant, scandalous and vexatious', Du Plooy asked the court to both strike the allegations from the document and censure him and his legal team by awarding punitive costs against them. He did so in an application in terms of the Supreme Court Rules. Du Plooy said although the NPA could be criticised where the facts warranted it, 'this does not allow an important institution of our democracy to be gratuitously and unnecessarily scandalised'. 'Such actions unjustifiably bring into disrepute, in the eyes of the public, an important organ of government and role-player in the criminal justice system. This is evidenced by the growing perception that appears to be taking root that (Zuma) 'cannot have a fair trial' because he is 'a victim of a political conspiracy'. Full report in the Sunday Times

Determining whether Zuma is innocent or guilty is of the 'most pressing interest', says the NPA, according to a report on the Legalbrief Today site. Du Plooy wrote in responding papers: 'I submit that the most pressing interest involved is to have the guilt or innocence of a person who aspires to the highest office of the land definitively determined in a court of law.' He added: 'The granting of this application would only serve to delay this end.' Zuma's application is expected to be heard in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on 4 and 5 August. Du Plooy said Zuma was not 'entitled to make representations before being charged. The prosecution imperative remains, namely to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice.' Full report on the Legalbrief Today site See also a report in The Witness

Zuma's recent settlement with SARS does not necessarily clear him 'after years of delinquency'. Du Plooy points out that Zuma's settlement with SARS - understood to relate to his alleged evasion of about R1.2m in tax on undisclosed income - had been reached only last month. The state alleges that this income was made up of corrupt payments Zuma received from his former financial adviser and convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik, who is serving a 15-year sentence. Forensic investigations conducted by the state show that, up until 2005, Shaik gave Zuma benefits totalling over R4m. According to a report in The Independent on Saturday, Du Plooy wrote: 'I observe that the 'regularisation' of his tax affairs after years of delinquency does not exculpate him any more than a thief who repays the stolen money, or a shoplifter who tries to replace stolen goods on the shelf after he is caught.' Full report in The Independent on Saturday