Jacob Zuma Fails Pre-Trial Litigation Attempt
President of RSAs Ruling Party Has Both Pre-Trial Appeals Rejected
Aug 3, 2008
Beginning in earnest last month, a much-anticipated sequence of events in South Africa's currently turbulent sociopolitical climate has begun to unfold in a manner that would make the most zealous Zuma supporter, of which there are many, feel ill at ease. Jacob Zuma, the undeniably popular and controversial president of the ANC, has reached a major legal hiccup in his seemingly indefatigable endeavour to prevent his corruption trial from happening. Two court rulings made by 11 judges seem to make it increasingly apparent that the ANC leader will, despite his legal resistance, stand trial for charges of corruption.
Karyn Maughan, of the Cape Argus, reported that 10 of the 11 judges ruling in court on 31 July 2008 rejected his search and seizure appeal directed at the evidence gained through a raid by the Scorpions on 22 August 2005. The judges ruled that the warrants for the raid were quite valid, contrary to the claims made by Zuma's legal team. All 11 judges voted against his second bid to disallow allegedly incriminating documents from Mauritious being used as evidence. According to Maughan, Chief Justice Langa underlined State Counsel Wim Trengrove's plea to overrule unwarranted attempts made by those accused of a crime to extricate themselves in pre-trial litigations.
Zuma's Next Move
Zuma has recently been extremely busy reworking his image around South Arica and abroad, and now faces very difficult battles ahead. Zuma must reclaim his public esteem in order to maintain his increasingly tenuous candidacy for the presidency of the Republic of South Africa. The situation is not nearly as simple as some of his supporters may suggest. Not only does Zuma need to make drastic reparations to his already dubious reputation (evinced by his rape trial), but it would behoove him to consider the implications of having a successful pre-trial appeal.
Campaigning with an unresolved charge over one's head is generally not conducive to generating trust with potential voters. If Zuma were to prevent an impartial pursuit of the truth surrounding these charges, it would certainly weigh heavily on any future effort of fashioning an image of integrity and competence which are prerequisites of the job to which he aspires. It would therefore appear that the ideal outcome for Zuma would probably be a fair trial where he is found innocent through correct legal procedures. This, his best option, is exactly what Zuma does not want.The second of Zuma's pre-trial appeals will take place in the Pietermaritzburg High Court. There, Zuma will attempt to have his prosecution declared invalid. This is a quite drastic, but not completely unexpected move on his part. It seems that, for a man who consistently proclaims his innocence, and fervently beseeches his critics for 'his day in court', he contradicts himself with every failed pre-trial appeal he makes.
 |
