The case of Zuma’s indictment in the Shaik/Thales/Nkobi/Thomson verdict: for ten years the State has dragged its feet to prosecute Jacob Zuma, despite the ruling of the High Court to do so. How can one man escape justice for so long, keeping the whole of South Africa hostage? How could the prosecuting authorities and justice system allow one man to continue in his corrupt ways, albeit with “new” Gupta business partners?
Shall we dissect (academically and in practice) the principle of equality before the law for a moment and our moral obligations to the society that we serve?
The High Court found that the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) failed in his duties not to allow the case against President Jacob Zuma to proceed.
Since this happened thousands of persons were accused and prosecuted before some 750 courts across the RSA – many convicted and some incarcerated – on lesser charges.
Today thousands more will appear before our courts and the same may happen which leaves me with the morality of the issue.
What will happen if legal practitioners stand up today and argue this point in courts across the land? We may tend to brush over this and continue to practice and adjudicate what is in front of us today but how do we go to sleep tonight?
Has the acting NDPP that took that decision not been elevated to the Bench following the decision that may haunt his conscious?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
In the matter of: –
THE STATE
versus
JACOB GEDLEYIHLEKISA ZUMA
THINT HOLDING (SOUTHERN AFRICA) (PTY) LTD
(formerly known as Thomson-CSF Holding (Southern Africa) (Pty) Ltd)
(hereinafter also referred to as Thomson Holdings)
(as represented by Pierre Jean-Marie Robert Moynot)
THINT (PTY) LTD
(formerly known as Thomson-CSF (Pty) Ltd)
(hereinafter also referred to as Thomson (Pty))
(as represented by Pierre Jean-Marie Robert Moynot)
(hereinafter also referred to as the accused)
INDICTMENT
The State alleges that the accused are guilty of the following crimes :
COUNT 1: RACKETEERING in contravention of Section 2(1)(e) read with Sections 1, 2(2) and 3 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, No. 121 of 1998, as amended:
Whilst employed by or associated with any enterprise, conducts or participates in the conduct, directly or indirectly, of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activities.
(Accused 1 to 3)
COUNT 2: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 1(2) and 3 of the Corruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.
(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
In the alternative (as separate counts)
SUBCOUNT 1: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 1(2) and 3 of the Corruption Act, No. 94 of 1992. (In respect of the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004)
SUBCOUNT 2: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 1 July 2005)
Alternatively to subcount 2:
RECEIVING AN UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION BY A PERSON WHO IS PARTY TO AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP in contravention of section 10(a) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 14 June 2005)
COUNT 3: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 1(2) and 3 of the Corruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.
(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 2 and 3)
In the alternative (as separate counts)
SUBCOUNT 1: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 1(2) and 3 of the Corruption Act, No. 94 of 1992. (In respect of the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004)
SUBCOUNT 2: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 1 July 2005)
Alternatively to subcount 2:
GIVING AN UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION TO A PERSON WHO IS PARTY TO AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP in contravention of section 10(b) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No. 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 14 June 2005)
COUNT 4: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 1(2) and 3 of the Corruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.
(In terms of section 156 of Act No. 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
COUNT 5: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.
(In terms of section 156 of Act No. 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 2 and 3)
COUNT 6: MONEY LAUNDERING in contravention of section 4, read with sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, No. 121 of 1998
(Accused 1 to 3)
In the alternative
ACQUISITION, POSSESSION OR USE OF PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES in contravention of section 6, read with sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, No. 121 of 1998
COUNT 7: FRAUD
(In terms of section 156 of Act No. 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
COUNT 8: FRAUD
(In terms of section 156 of Act No. 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
COUNT 9: FRAUD
(In terms of section 156 of Act No. 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
COUNTS 10-18: FRAUD (9 COUNTS)
(In terms of section 156 of Act No. 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)
In the first alternative
MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS IN INCOME TAX RETURNS in contravention of Section 104(1)(a), read with Section 66 of the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962,
In the second alternative
FAILING TO SHOW GROSS INCOME OR MATERIAL FACTS IN TAX RETURNS in contravention of Section 75(1)(c) read with Sections 1 and 66 of the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962.
Read the original article by Hannes Engelbrecht in Afrikaans on Front Nasionaal SA – blad
South Africa Today – South Africa News
