WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2007-05-30 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
[Why Zuma? Why not the rest of Mbeki’s bum chums? Is Zuma the only one who is guilty of crimes in the ANC? I very much doubt that. Most of the ANC leadership are probably every bit as corrupt as Zuma was. But now they’re picking on him because of Mbeki’s CIA buddies and his little Xhosa Cabal. The Xhosas want a monopoly to rule this country. Jan]
By Karyn Maughan and Monica Laganparsad
Prosecutors are preparing to put Jacob Zuma on trial for corruption, fraud and money-laundering.
After months of denying that the National Prosecuting Authority was planning to charge the former deputy president, state advocate Billy Downer on Tuesday conceded in the Durban High Court that the State was “marshalling evidence for trial”.
But those attempts to gather evidence look set to be characterised by increasingly ugly wrangling between Zuma’s lawyers and the State – with lawyers for Zuma and French arms Thint launching a full-scale battle to keep allegedly damning evidence against them in Mauritius and out of the state’s hands.
| ‘There is not a shred of evidence’ |
And, if Zuma and Thint fail to stop the state from collecting the originals of 14 documents used to convict Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, of corruption and fraud, they have promised to challenge the request in the Mauritian courts.
Central to Zuma’s objection to the request is his claim that the state unlawfully failed to disclose the “political” nature of his alleged offence to Mauritian authorities.
Revealing his presidential ambitions for the first time in court documents, Zuma has claimed that the state’s investigation was “engineered” to tarnish him before the ANC’s crucial presidential candidate elections at the end of the year.
In papers before the Pretoria High Court – in which Zuma is fighting another state request to UK authorities for information about his financial affairs – he repeated his claims that a “political motive” was behind the charges against him.
Downer has slammed these “conspiracy theories”, stressing “there is not a shred of evidence” for the claims.
| ‘This is more like Stalingrad’ |
Fighting for the State’s right to obtain the originals of the disputed Mauritian documents, Downer said Zuma and Thint’s efforts to halt this process could “irreparably damage” the State’s investigation.
“The nub of the issue is an irreparable delay that cannot be cured by every trick in the book,” he said.
“With tears in our eyes, we say these documents are cogent and relevant to our investigation… and we should really be able to obtain them.”
Downer called Zuma and Thint’s opposition part of a “full-scale and cut-throat defence” in which the state expected to “prove every point… cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’.”
The State used copies of the disputed documents – which include what its describes as the “damning” diary of Thint representative Alain Thetard – to show that Shaik orchestrated a R500 000 bribe for Zuma from Thint, to protect them from a potentially damaging arms deal inquiry.
But Zuma’s legal team say they will refuse to accept these copies as evidence, should he be put on trial.
The NPA has already won an order from Durban High Court Judge Philip Levinsohn allowing prosecutors to request the documents.
Zuma and Thint will appeal against that decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal in September, and are trying to stop the State from obtaining the documents before this.
Addressing Downer’s claims that Zuma was trying to delay the State’s attempt to finalise its investigations, Zuma’s counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, claimed this opposition was “based on perfectly legitimate grounds”.
“This is not a battle where you send a champion out and have a little fight and that’s it… this is more like Stalingrad,” he said, referring to the bloody World War 2 battle.
He denied advocates were trying to delay the matter: “If we are entitled to an objection, there’s no point in throwing stones at us,” he said.
Judge Jan Hugo on Tuesday reserved judgment, saying he needed time to make his decision.