NPA's answering affidavit bolsters DA's request to reinstate charges against Zuma
31 March 2015
Today the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has at last filed its answering affidavit relating to the review of the decision to discontinue the prosecution of over 700 charges of corruption and racketeering levelled against President Jacob Zuma. Our preliminary view is that the contents of the NPA's answering affidavit proffers no substantive reasons for why these charges were dropped in the first place.
It is therefore the DA's contention that these charges should be reinstated without further delay. This comes after the NPA finally filed its answering affidavit after almost six years and three missed deadlines.
The NPA's rationale for dropping the 783 charges against President Zuma is that "McCarthy manipulated the Zuma prosecution for an ulterior motive on the instruction of Ngcuka and others close to Mbeki" to assist Mbeki retain control of the ANC ahead of the ANC's Polokwane elective conference in 2008.
The NPA further goes on to argue that this gave rise to the level of an abuse of power by the then President, Thabo Mbeki, the erstwhile NPA boss, Bulelani Ngcuka, and Scorpions boss, Leonard McCarthy. There is no new evidence to suggest that Ngcuka unduly influenced McCarthy's decision-making or that Mbeki exerted any undue pressure on Ngcuka. The Prosecuting Authority has, therefore, made these claims based on speculation and conjecture and has failed to provide any cold, hard evidence to support these allegations.
In any event, it is not for the NPA to decide not to prosecute based on its own conclusion that this matter or any matter is fraught with undue political influence. The decision to prosecute was based on the facts, not the timing of the service of the indictment.
It is therefore for the NPA to argue the merits of its case in a court of law and for a competent judge to assess whether or not political interference, if any, has compromised the case and resulted in malicious prosecution.
Most importantly, the NPA's affidavit emphasises how the case against President Zuma was credibly built and nowhere in its affidavit is any mention made of the deficiencies in the state's case that would have warranted the dropping of these charges.
It is our contention that the record of decision reveals that the then NPA boss, Mokotedi Mpshe:
did not make his decision based on an assessment that his earlier decision to institute criminal proceedings against the President was flawed;
He did not make his decision based on any new information;
He did not make his decision based on any substantive content of the indictment containing the charges or on concerns about the prosecuting team.
Consequently, it is our assertion that there never was any legitimate factual or legal reason to drop the charges in the first place and that this was done to further a political agenda.
The DA has long held, as outlined in my supplementary affidavit, that the President may indeed not be guilty of corruption but must, like any other citizen, have his day in court.
Therefore the DA will proceed with its court action to declare that the decision to drop the charges against President Zuma be set aside on account that the decision itself was irrational and therefore unlawful.
Statement issued by James Selfe MP, Chairperson of the DA's Federal Executive, March 31 2015
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
