In 2004, Jacob Zuma was concerned in a terse stand-off with Decide Joos Hefer, when he refused to testify earlier than the Hefer Fee of Inquiry.
Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo dismissed former president Jacob Zuma’s recusal software on the grounds that Zuma failed to satisfy the check for an inexpensive apprehension of bias. The choice got here as no shock. Beforehand, Professor Pierre de Vos, a constitutional legislation skilled, set out why the appliance had little prospect of success.
Zuma’s lawyer indicated shortly earlier than the Zondo Fee took a tea break on Thursday that they’d excuse themselves as Zuma needed to lodge a grievance with the Judicial Service Fee in opposition to Zondo on him being “a decide and a witness” within the recusal software by the previous president.
Zuma had been summoned to look earlier than the fee between 16 and 20 November to reply to allegations that emerged throughout the testimony of a number of witnesses. Zuma was purported to take the stand after the ruling on his software and reply questions on varied issues which the fee is investigating.
When the fee resumed after about an hour, Zondo introduced that Zuma had left with out his permission and that he regarded it as “a really severe matter”. Zondo then adjourned the listening to to mirror on the matter.
Zuma tried the same tactic within the case of the Hefer Fee of Inquiry, however this time the implicit refusal to offer proof would possibly backfire.
The background to the Hefer Fee of Inquiry is as follows: Zuma and Shabir Shaik have been investigated for corruption within the Arms Deal. The costs concerned bribes Zuma allegedly solicited from a French arms supplier with assistance from his “monetary adviser” Shaik.
In August 2003, the erstwhile justice minister, Penuell Maduna, exerted stress on advocate Bulelani Ngcuka, the nationwide director of public prosecutions on the time, to make a public assertion that Zuma wouldn’t be prosecuted regardless of a prima facie case in opposition to him. Dependable sources prompt that the “preferential remedy” of Zuma was because of political intervention by the then president, Thabo Mbeki, because of the implications for the ANC.
When Ngcuka proceeded with the corruption trial in opposition to Shaik, two shut associates of Zuma and Shaik leaked allegations to a newspaper that Ngcuka was “a former apartheid spy”. The individuals involved have been Mo Shaik, the brother of Shabir, and Mac Maharaj, each carefully related to Zuma and ANC intelligence constructions throughout the battle.
In September 2003, Mbeki appointed the Hefer Fee of Inquiry to analyze the allegations and the health of Ngcuka to carry workplace.
In a terse stand-off with Decide Joos Hefer, Zuma refused to testify earlier than the fee. Within the report, issued in January 2004, Justice Hefer made scathing findings in regards to the credibility of the spurious allegations and exonerated Ngcuka from all blame.
Listed here are some excerpts from the report that particularly relate to Zuma’s refusal to offer proof earlier than the fee:
 In line with the article in Metropolis Press referred to earlier, the operations of the intelligence unit beneath Mr Shaik whose process it was to root out authorities brokers within the ANC, have been supervised by the current Deputy President – then Chief of Intelligence of the organisation – and it thus appeared to me initially that Mr Zuma’s proof could be required. As well as, by the point of the appointment of the fee a sequence of press and different public stories had appeared from which it could possibly be gathered that Mr Zuma was not happy with the best way wherein Mr Ngcuka had handled an investigation into his doable involvement in transactions allegedly referring to the so-called “arms deal.”
 Anticipating that he might help in my inquiry into the 1989 investigation and anticipating that he would a minimum of welcome a possibility to air his obvious grievance, I brought on a letter to be written to Mr Zuma on 16 October 2003 informing him that I used to be “anxious to know whether or not you’ve got any data which may be of help to the Fee having regard to its phrases of reference and, in that case, whether or not you might be keen to supply such data by testifying earlier than the Fee.”
 The reply dated 22 October 2003 was as follows:
The letter addressed to myself by the secretary of the Fee and dated 16 October 2003 refers…
“With regard to invitation for me to help the Fee, I want to point out that after I was deployed by the ANC as Chief of Intelligence, I used to be tasked by my organisation, the ANC, to undertake this most delicate responsibility. The knowledge of varied classes that I handled was the property of the ANC. I, as a person, had no proper or authority then, and nonetheless haven’t any proper, to debate such issues exterior the ANC. I subsequently remorse that I can’t be of any help to the Fee with out the permission or instruction of my organisation.”
 On 28 October 2003 I responded as follows:
“Thanks to your letter dated 22 October 2003.
After I learn the letter it occurred to me that you could have neglected my prolonged phrases of reference which require me to analyze whether or not Mr Ngcuka or Minister Maduna misused the prosecuting authority.
Judging by what has been reported within the media you aren’t proud of the remedy you acquired from Mr Ngcuka within the very latest previous and it occurred to me that you simply would possibly wish to air your obvious grievance within the Fee.
In the event you resolve to take action please ask your secretary to rearrange an acceptable date with Mr Bacon, the secretary of the fee.”
 I acquired the next reply dated 7 November 2003:
“I seek advice from your letter dated 28 October 2003.
I’ve famous the prolonged phrases of reference of the Fee and totally perceive their implication. Nevertheless, with due respect, I need to re-iterate that for causes said in my earlier letter to the Fee, I stay unable to take part.”
 The explanations superior within the letter of twenty-two October 2003 for Mr Zuma’s reluctance to share his information of the 1989 investigation with the fee have been, in fact, patently inadequate to justify a choice to not name him as a witness. Nevertheless, I made a decision to withhold a subpoena till I had heard Mr Shaik’s proof. When this gentleman later testified that Mr Zuma had merely acquired a report of the 1989 investigation, I assumed that it will not be essential to name Mr Zuma as a witness. However I turned doubtful when Mr Ngcuka’s counsel prompt in cross-examining Mr Shaik that the alleged 1989 investigation had actually by no means occurred. For that reason I wrote to Mr Zuma on 24 November 2003:
“I’ve famous your indication that you don’t want to testify earlier than the fee. Nevertheless, sure ideas within the cross-examination of Mr Moe Shaik have satisfied me that your proof is critical. Will you please inform the secretary of the fee in the present day of the day throughout the present week on which you can be out there to testify in Bloemfontein. I make this request as a result of I want to keep away from issuing a subpoena.”
This letter was faxed by means of throughout the forenoon of 24 November 2003. Nevertheless, later that very same day, after I had ascertained from Mr Ngcuka’s counsel that he wouldn’t persist within the suggestion that the 1989 investigation had by no means taken place, I despatched an additional facsimile to Mr Zuma. It learn as follows:
“Kindly be suggested that the ideas in cross-examination referred to in my facsimile earlier in the present day have been withdrawn. My request that it is best to point out if you could be out there to testify accordingly falls away.”
 On 8 December I replied as follows to the letters quoted within the earlier paragraph:
“Judging by your letters of 27 November 2003 and 5 December 2003 you might be beneath the impression that I professed to checklist your causes for not eager to testify earlier than the fee after I introduced my resolution to not name you. This isn’t what I did. The explanations which you superior didn’t fulfill me that you’d be entitled to refuse your testimony. I made a decision to not name you, not for these causes, however for those said after I introduced my resolution and thus the document requires no correction.”
 I’ve revealed the correspondence I had with the Deputy President as a result of, as seems from paragraph , he has in impact requested this, and since it requires the next observations:
(a) In expressing his dissatisfaction with the explanations that I superior for not calling him, Mr Zuma overpassed the truth that I recorded my very own causes for my resolution and never the explanations for his reluctance to look. As talked about earlier, his causes have been inadequate to justify a choice to not problem a subpoena. There was no misunderstanding on my half. My causes for not calling him have been precisely these recorded viz (i) the truth that he couldn’t contribute meaningfully to the inquiry into the spying allegations, and (ii) that he didn’t want to pursue his grievance in regards to the alleged misuse of Mr Ngcuka’s workplace within the fee. He determined to take his grievance to the Public Protector and it was not for me to steer or compel him to make use of the fee as his discussion board.
(b) In the identical breath I need to draw consideration to the concluding comment in Mr Zuma’s facsimile of 25 November 2002 quoted in paragraph  which appears to be a sign that he may not be averse to ignoring a subpoena. All I want to say is that it will be a tragic day if, for worry of incurring the wrath of a political organisation to which he belongs, the holder of one of many highest workplaces of State have been to contemplate ignoring a subpoena issued by a fee appointed by the President beneath an influence vested in him by the Structure.
Regardless of the findings, Zuma went forward to put a grievance with the Public Protector in Could 2004 about the best way the prosecuting authority handled the allegations of corruption associated to the Arms Deal.
Within the present stand-off with Justice Zondo, Zuma apparently needs to lodge a grievance with the Judicial Service Fee concerning Zondo’s dealing with of the recusal software and in addition take the refusal of the appliance on judicial overview.
Nevertheless, advocate Paul Pretorius, the pinnacle of the fee’s authorized group, indicated that proceedings ought to proceed however a overview, and Zuma could be in violation of his summons if he unilaterally withdrew. DM