THE LAST NEWS WORD
LEGAL TRAVAILS The Constitution of South Africa, the Constitutional Court, The Zondo Commission, the Supreme Court of Appeals and High Court Divisions have all featured prominently in the media with the common theme being matters related to former President Jacob Zuma. By Peter Bagshawe
T
he most recent of the court decisions that is noteworthy is the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals that Zuma be denied State funding for the legal fees for his corruption trial scheduled for May 2021, and further ordering he pay back legal fees that have been paid out by the State. The amount of the fees to be repaid vary in estimates between R15 million and R25 million and reflects amounts paid by the State Attorney as fees between June 2005 and March 2018. The Supreme Court confirmed the December 2018 Full Bench decision of the North Gauteng High Court as correct, clarifying that assistance by the State Attorney cannot be granted in criminal matters and further made an adverse costs award against Zuma. Immediately following this decision, an
38
SECURITY FOCUS AFRICA MAY 2021
announcement was made that Jacob Zuma’s current legal team would no longer be representing him in the corruption trial involving Zuma and French arms company Thales scheduled between 17 May and 20 June 2021 in the Pietermaritzburg High Court. Initially the withdrawal was seen as a response by Mabuza Attorneys to the Supreme Court decision denying funding of legal costs. Subsequently it was announced that Zuma had discharged his legal team and would be handling his corruption trial himself. The question that immediately arises is whether the Pietermaritzburg High Court would permit this to take place. The next point of debate is whether the lack of a legal team (Mabuza Attorneys appointed Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane and there is currently a lack of clarity on whether the
advocate will continue with the trial) will lead to a postponement of the matter in order that a replacement legal team may be appointed by Zuma. Debate exists that the lack of a legal team is a tactic to force a further postponement and a manipulation of the legal system. In this regard, Section 342(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act permits an investigation by the court if it suspects that the changing of legal teams is a tactic being adopted to obtain postponements. I am not aware that this type of investigation has ever been undertaken by the courts. An additional possibility is that Legal Aid could be applied for subject to Jacob Zuma being able to prove that he fulfils the qualifications. This would require that Zuma opens his financial records to scrutiny, which is unlikely. A final piece of input is the recent offer from Attorney
securityfocusafrica.com
