[The Rape trial is dragging out much longer than originally anticipated. Looks like its taking some interesting twists and turns. Jan]

Jacob Zuma’s defence team will on Monday apply for the rape case against him to be thrown out, claiming the state had failed to prove its case against him.

But if this application fails, Zuma will have to answer the state’s case by producing evidence to challenge the claims against him. His legal team will be forced to address at least a dozen unanswered questions about the incident.

Despite graphically recounting Zuma’s version of his November 2/3 sexual encounter with his accuser – and suggesting that the rape charge brought against him may have been part of a political plot – his legal team have yet to explain why he and his high-profile supporters continued to communicate with the complainant and her mother after she made the complaint against him.

‘Desperate to have the complaint against him withdrawn’
Zuma’s lawyers have also yet to directly address the complainant’s claims that the former deputy president tried to buy her silence.

Phone records and the evidence of the complainant, her mother, her friend Kimi Msibi, and lawyer Yusuf Dockrat – who was hired by KwaZulu Natal Finance MEC Zweli Mkhize to consult with the complainant – have already revealed that Zuma’s supporters were desperate to have the complaint against him withdrawn.

Although Mkhize was on the state’s list of witnesses, he was never called to testify – the state closed its case yesterday – and his version of the exact nature of his involvement in the alleged negotiations between Zuma and his accuser and her mother is, as yet, unheard.

Doubt remains over whether Mkhize would be called to testify in Zuma’s defence. What is clear, however, is that Zuma’s attorney, Michael Hulley, may be forced to take the stand.

In an apparent effort to damage Hulley’s credibility, the state on Thursday handed in a transcript of a radio interview he gave to Cape Talk radio station on November 14.

The radio interview was given four days after Zuma – with Hulley present – had been visited by senior police officials at his Nkandla, KwaZulu Natal, home and had proclaimed his innocence of the rape charge in an exculpatory statement. But Hulley claimed in the radio interview that Zuma was seeking confirmation from the police that the complaint had been made.

In a case that has pitted Zuma and Hulley’s credibility against that of two senior Joburg police officers – who claim to have witnessed Zuma make an incriminating admission about the location of the alleged rape – the transcript could well be used by the state to depict Hulley as dishonest.

Questions Zuma must answer
Why did Jacob Zuma knowingly have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman?

When exactly was he first informed about the rape charge?

Why did he initially not tell police he had had sex with his rape accuser?

Why did his lawyer, Michael Hulley, deceive the media about the police’s contact with him?

At what point did he inform Hulley that he had had sexual intercourse with his accuser?

What did he tell KZN Finance MEC Zweli Mkhize about the alleged rape incident?

What was the nature of the communication between Mkhize, Zuma, the complainant and her mother after the rape complaint was made?

Did he offer the complainant anything – financial or otherwise – to withdraw the charge? If so, why?

What led him to believe, on hearing about the rape complaint, that he was the victim of a political plot?

What did he say to police when they came to his Forest Town home on November 14?

Why has his defence team alleged that the police lied about his “pointing out” of the guest room as the location of the alleged rape?

This article was originally published on page 1 of The Star on March 24, 2006

Source: Independent Online (IOL)
URL: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click…/p>