Former president Jacob Zuma and his co-accussed, Thales, will now face the arms deal trial despite outstand appeal applications.
Image: File
The Pietermaritzburg High Court was justified to order the trial in the two-decade-long arms deal criminal case against former president Jacob Zuma and Thales to continue without being delayed further by interlocutory applications.
This is the view of legal expert Bongani Zaca who stated the delay in the criminal matter is a travesty of justice.
Judge Nkosinathi Chili on Thursday made an order that the longest case in South African history should commence with the trial, regardless of Zuma and Thales' pending application, regarding their call for the case to be quashed.
The charges against Zuma were first enrolled in 2005, withdrawn and then reinstated in 2018 with Thales becoming the co-accused.
The rape and murder of Cytheria Rex in Kraaifontein, Western Cape, in 2009 is another prolonged matter. Five men were convicted for the crime in November 2024 but their sentencing was scheduled for January 2026.
Another five men accused of the murder of Orlando Pirate and Bafana Bafana player Senzo Meyiwa in 2014 are still at the Pretoria High Court.
The case started at the Boksburg Magistrate in October 2020.
The arms deal trial delay was caused by a number of interlocutory applications, including Zuma’s unsuccessful attempt to remove State prosecutor Advocate Billy Downer from the matter.
The matter was also delayed by Zuma’s unsuccessful attempt to privately prosecute Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan.
Thales’s attempt to quash the case was the latest to delay the trial.
Zaca said Chili’s ruling was in line with the Common Law that says criminal cases must be conducted speedily.
“Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act talks about the unreasonable delay and the Constitution talk about a right to a fair and speedy trial,” said Zaca.
However, he said the speedy trial principle does not prevent rights to a fair trial “and to challenge decisions in the spirit of accountability”.
“This is just something that cannot be prevented because once they say do not appeal, they are infringing your rights,” said Zaca.
He said the arms deal trial has been delayed because if interested parties express their dissatisfaction about certain rulings they have rights to review or appeal.
“The accused has a constitutional right, but it does not mean that it is absolute therefore it can be limited.
“The accused cannot just raise delaying tactics for the sake of delaying the matter,” he said.
Zaca said it remains unclear how Chili’s judgment will be effectively enforced in case because the accused have valid reason to challenge the court decisions.
After Chili dismissed Zuma and Thales attempt to have the case quashed in February , the accused filed an application for leave to appeal that dismissal, which prompted National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)’s Advocate Wim Trengove SC, to apply to Chili to make a ruling against their Stalingrad Tactics.
In his ruling against the Stalingrad tactics, Judge Chili stated that it was in the interest of justice to proceed with the trial, irrespective of Zuma and Thales' request to appeal his decision to dismiss their application to quash the trial.
“Without this court’s intervention, it is in my view that there is a likelihood of grave injustice or the administration of justice being brought into disrepute.
“A court has an obligation to guarantee public confidence in the judicial authority and the administration of justice, [therefore] this court owes the public a duty to facilitate the expeditious commencement of the criminal trial,” Chili said.
He did not say the interested parties should no longer lodge appeal applications.
“The trial is to proceed irrespective of any interlocutory applications, either by the State or the defense,” he said.
After directing the NPA and the accused's lawyers to approach the court registrar for a suitable trial date, Chili postponed the matter to February 1, 2027.
JG Zuma Foundation said Chili’s ruling disregarded principles of fairness, rationality, and due process.
Zuma and Thales applied to appeal Chili’s ruiling at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
They argued that several witnesses have died and those who are still alive have their memories of events of the matter faded.
Another criminal law expert, Mpumelelo Zikalala, said the fact that witnesses were dying should be the reason for the trial to start without further delays.
“That is why the trial should start because by the time you finish with interlocutory applications more people would have died and more memories would have diminished,” he said.
He said although the accused have rights to stall the case through lodging appeals and reviews, courts have interim jurisdictions, which allow them to stray away from the common law.
“The general rule is that you (the court) should deal with all interlocutory applications, before you come back to the trial.
“But the exception to the rule would be if you see that one of the provisions in the Constitution is being broken, then you can depart from the general rule.
“The accused have the right to a fair trial, meaning the trial must start and end within the shortest reasonable amount of time.
“The right to a fair trial means that any impediments and delays allowed by the Criminal Procedure Act, the judge has the prerogative of dictating how the matter should be conducted,” said Zikalala.
Cape Times