The arms deal corruption issue

[Dave A]

For anyone interested, here is the full NPA statement as to why they are not prosecuting Jacob Zuma.

For those who would prefer something shorter, here we go:

The representations submitted by the legal representatives pertained to the following issues:

The substantive merits;

The fair trial defences;

The practical implications and considerations of continued prosecution; and

The policy aspects militating against prosecution.


I need to state upfront that we could not find anything with regard to the first three grounds that militate against a continuation of the prosecution, and I therefore do not intend to deal in depth with those three grounds.

I will focus on the fourth ground, which I consider to be the most pertinent for purposes of my decision. I will now deal with the policy aspects militating against the prosecution.

The statement then quotes numerous legal precedents and then transcripts of conversations that indicate abuse of process. This relates particularly to the timing of placing the charges against Zuma.

I don't think the precedents quoted do much to support the argument to drop the charges (in fact they seem to infer the exact opposite), but the transcripts certainly give evidence of partisan parties within the NPA and DSO - definitely not a healthy situation.

From there we get to the conclusion. And I'd like to focus on this bit:

In the light of the above, 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.

Let me also state for the record that the prosecution team itself had recommended that the prosecution should continue even if the allegations are true, and that it should be left to a court of law to decide whether to stop the prosecution.

However, I believe that the NPA has a special duty, as one of the guardians of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, to ensure that its conduct is at all times beyond reproach.

And so Mokotedi Mpshe paints himself with his own brush. I would suggest that the Director has argued against himself.

Is his dropping of the charges against Jacob Zuma beyond reproach?
Especially after arguing so eloquently that the NPA must pursue justice without fear or favour.

He freely concedes there are no mitigating circumstances i.r.o. the substantive merits, the fair trial defences and the practical implications and considerations of continued prosecution.

So we are left with his embarrassment. Isn't embarrassment a form of fear?

Now here is the kicker -
How can we ever see Director Mpshe's interpretation of justice tested in court?
Because let's face it, who's left to bring the charge?

If it was such a difficult decision, he should not have appointed himself as final arbiter in the matter and followed the advice of his prosecution team - and let the courts decide.

As the Director says, the NPA is one of the guardians of the constitution and Bill of Rights, not the final guardian.