SOUTH AFRICA'S NATIONAL PROSECUTOR SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE COURTS TO DECIZE ZUMA'S CASE

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA
By The Editor,

Apr 07, 2009

He took it upon himself to play the role of judge instead of leaving decision to the courts

The tapes, in Mpshe’s view, were a fatal problem for the state’s case
EDITORIAL: JACOB Zuma tends to evoke strong emotions. There are those who believe that he is a corrupt misogynist who should be hounded to the grave.

Ngcuka to be charged

And there are those who think he is the innocent victim of a plot to destroy him because he dared stand up against Thabo Mbeki’s attempt to hold onto power.

So you had to feel for Mokotedi Mpshe, the man on whose shoulders it fell to make a decision about whether to charge Zuma for corruption and fraud.

Yesterday, after a week or so of painful discussions, he made his announcement: “I have come to the difficult conclusion that it is neither possible nor desirable for the NPA to continue with the prosecution of Mr Zuma.

“It is a difficult decision because the NPA has expended considerable resources on this matter, and it has been conducted by a committed and dedicated team of prosecutors and investigators who have handled a difficult case with utmost professionalism, and who have not been implicated in any misconduct.”

With that, Mpshe closed the door on the long- running effort to bring Zuma to book for corruption and fraud.

He had hardly finished speaking when the pro- and anti-Zuma camps issued their predictably partisan statements.

Few paid attention to his reasons, but they are worth going over.

Mpshe argued that it became abundantly clear to him that there had been substantial, deliberate and “unconscionable” interference in Zuma’s prosecution by former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka and the man driving the prosecution, Leonard McCarthy, then head of the Scorpions.

He quoted recorded conversations that clearly showed that the case was being manipulated for political ends in relation to the ANC’s Polokwane conference, at which Zuma challenged Mbeki for the party leadership.

It was highly inappropriate that Ngcuka, then no longer with the NPA, should be directing the timing of the laying of charges against Zuma in order to disadvantage him politically.

Worse, the tapes, said Mpshe, had been legitimately obtained and were admissible as evidence. This would pose a major problem — in Mpshe’s view, a fatal problem — for the state’s case.

Though his prosecution team had wanted a judge to decide on the legitimacy of the case, Mpshe had decided to withdraw the charges.

This is where he might have erred.

He took it upon himself to play the role of judge when he should have left the decision to the courts.

A strong case could perhaps have been made that Zuma’s guilt or innocence needed to be tested, procedural inadequacies notwithstanding.