The state launched what it labelled the “Stop Stalingrad” application on Thursday, aimed at stopping the years-long delays in the arms-deal related corruption trial of former president Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thales.
It was Pietermaritzburg high court judge Nkosinathi Chili who ordered that the criminal trial should proceed, in spite of any pending applications for leave to appeal, or appeals.
Advocate Wim Trengove said such an order would “restore the reputation of the administration of justice”.
However, Zuma’s advocate Dali Mpofu labelled it as the “Zuma must fall” application and that his client, and Thales, were being treated differently to any other accused person who had a constitutional right to appeal any issue to a higher court.
Zuma and Thales pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering fraud, corruption and money laundering in May 2021. Since then the trial has been bogged down by numerous interlocutory applications and no evidence has been led.
It came back to court this week after a ruling in June by Chili against an application by Thales ― on which Zuma piggybacked ― to have the prosecution stopped.
They both cited the deaths of former Thales executives Pierre Moynot and Alain Thetard as being irreparably prejudicial, because they could not be called to give evidence or be cross-examined.
Chili ruled, essentially, that any such prejudice could be raised and considered during the actual trial.
Now Thales and Zuma are asking for leave to appeal this ruling. The state is opposing this and launched its own ‘Stop Stalingrad’ application, which is being opposed by Thales and Zuma.
Chili questioned whether it was in the interests of justice “to get into the merits” of that application.
“What will follow is that the court will write a judgment, and the unsuccessful party will most definitely take it on appeal, which will further delay the finalisation of the matter,” the judge said.
He pointed out that in his June judgment, he had “deliberately decided not to attribute the ongoing delays to anybody”.
Trengove responded: “If there was any better way of avoiding further delays we would go along with it. This strategy has delayed this case for 18 years. What it has involved is a pattern. The accused will launch hopeless applications ― eight different interlocutory applications so far.
“What they have in common, is they have all been dismissed, they have been taken on appeal, to the final limit and all have finally failed.
“They were all consecutively run. When one ends, another is launched and so we go on the merry-go-round which avoids the trial in this matter.”
He said the result was that the “administration of justice has been brought into disrepute”.
Trengrove said while the court could not stop Zuma and Thales from bringing further applications, it could put a stop to the delays by directing that the trial must go on, regardless of appeals.
He said while it was likely that if the court granted the order, that too would be appealed, “it at least gives us the hope of putting an end to Stalingrad.
“We can’t resign ourselves to the fact that we are stuck on this merry-go-round. The accused must face their day in court. They can’t forever delay that date. So we ask you today to put a stop to that tactic, and even if it’s taken on appeal, we will ask the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court to put a stop to it.”
Regarding the application for leave to appeal, he said the law did not allow “mid-stream” appeals in criminal matters.
Adv Barry Roux, for Thales, objected to his client being put in the same “Stalingrad boat” as Zuma because it had only been involved in four interlocutory applications.
“Thales was just a passenger in [Zuma’s] other applications.”
He said forcing his client into a trial would be “plain prejudice and grave harm” that could be avoided because if the intended appeal succeeded, the trial would be stopped.
“The appeal will take some time, but not extraordinary time. The chances are that the appeal process will be concluded before we can agree on new dates [for trial].
Roux persisted with his argument that Thetard and Moiynot were essential witnesses, especially Thetard, who, on the State’s case, was the author of the so-called encrypted fax that detailed the bribes allegedly paid to Zuma.
Mpofu argued, however, that the “Zuma must fall” application must fail and the state was, once again, “seeking to denigrate the legitimate processes” followed by his client.
He said the labelling of the application was “sensational” and “exaggerated”.
Referring to the fact that judge Chili had not attributed any blame for the ongoing delays in his June ruling, which Mpofu said was for “good reason”, he asked: “How is the NPA going to jump over this hurdle? Your lordship cannot decide on this application without making such a decision. That is the death of the application.”
On the leave to appeal application, he said: “Everyone on the street knows that this case involves the arms deal and it’s about an encrypted fax. The encrypted fax is the smoking gun.
“The author of it is dead. We had a right to cross-examine him and that is gone forever.”
Regarding “mid-stream appeals”, Mpofu argued that nothing superseded the constitution, which stated that every accused person had the right to appeal to a higher court.
“You cannot even limit that right. But in the case of Thales and Zuma, the show must go on,” he said.
Chili reserved judgment in both applications, saying he would hand it down on January 23.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.