State can’t argue against Zuma’s repeated attempts to remove Downer, lawyer insists

Jacob Zuma’s lawyer has insisted that the state cannot argue against the former president’s repeated attempts at removing his arms deal prosecutor, Billy Downer, as part of his Stalingrad strategy.

Zuma has suffered a series of losses in his bid to remove Downer due to alleged bias, claiming his continued involvement would compromise his right to a fair trial.

Zuma lawyer: Stalingrad claim impermissible

In papers filed at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), Zuma’s attorney Bethuel Thusini argues that it is “impermissible” for the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to again argue the former president was pushing for Downer’s removal as part of a proven abusive campaign.

In February 2025, Zuma’s counsel argued against multiple court findings that the former president had employed Stalingrad legal tactics, pursuing futile cases and appeals with the sole aim of delaying his arms trial and avoiding his day in court.

Thusini argues that this is because KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) High Court in Pietermaritzburg Judge Nkosinathi Chili stated in his ruling dismissing Zuma’s latest attempt to remove Downer that he “did not consider it appropriate to engage in the exercise of attributing blame to any party for the delay” in Zuma’s trial.

NPA’s arguments

According to Thusini, this amounts to Chili “roundly” rejecting the state’s Stalingrad argument, which has already been accepted by multiple other courts.

Thusini suggests that, because Zuma’s trial judge, Piet Koen, and Chili were both reluctant to make findings about the former president’s Stalingrad strategy, this amounts to a rejection of the NPA’s arguments.

The NPA clearly does not accept that contention.

ALSO READ: Zuma and Thales back in court for judgment on corruption charges

Long complex trial

Zuma’s insistence that he was owed a long and complex ruling on his latest attempts to remove Downer – despite the fact that multiple courts had conclusively rejected his various complaints – was just one of many arguments he made to the SCA as part of his efforts to revive an appeal by Chili found to have no reasonable prospects of success.

Zuma’s eight failed attempts to force Downer’s removal followed his unsuccessful efforts to privately prosecute the career state advocate and journalist Karn Maughan for the alleged violation of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act, through the sharing of publicly available court papers, which contained a sick note from one of the former president’s doctors.

Abuse of court

That case was condemned as an “abuse” by multiple courts and invalidated.

The SCA found that the facts demonstrated “that the private prosecution of Mr Downer is an abuse of the process of the court” because it was “instituted as a further step in a sustained attempt by Mr Zuma to obstruct, delay and prevent his criminal trial” and “to have Mr Downer removed as the prosecutor in Mr Zuma’s trial”.

This “ulterior purpose” rendered the private prosecution unlawful, SCA Judge Nathan Ponnan said – before adding that the charges that Zuma had sought to pursue against Downer and this writer were “patently a hopeless case” and “obviously unsustainable”.

In Zuma’s SCA application to appeal the dismissal of his latest Downer removal bid, the former president maintains that the fact that his private prosecution of Downer was invalidated as an abuse “was irrelevant in relation to the reasonableness or otherwise of [my] perception of bias on the part of Mr Downer”.

ALSO READ: Zuma’s lawyers argue for acquittal due to lengthy delays in the arms deal case [VIDEO]

Downer removal

In July, in papers filed before the SCA, Downer argued that the legal framework and arguments surrounding Zuma’s application for leave to appeal to remove him​ are clear and well-established.

“As the High Court’s refusal of Mr Zuma’s attempt to have me removed as a prosecutor was a decision made during a criminal trial, it may be appealed only if and when Mr Zuma is convicted and sentenced.”

Delays

Downer also argues that Zuma’s prosecution has been dragging on for the better part of 21 years.

The delay has in large part been due to Mr Zuma’s alleged “Stalingrad strategy,” through which he allegedly seeks to avoid facing the charges against him.

“He does this by launching and prosecuting multiple challenges of various kinds. They have all failed. He then pursues them through successive attempts to appeal. When a challenge finally peters out, he initiates a fresh challenge through another round of litigation. The purpose is contrary to his public rhetoric that he wants his day in court – to avoid ever standing trial,” Downer said.

Zuma appeal

Downer argued it is crucial for the SCA to summarily dismiss Zuma’s latest appeal bid.

“The state views this as yet another instalment in Zuma’s alleged ‘Stalingrad strategy’, aimed at delaying the criminal trial indefinitely. The SCA’s decision could either reinforce or challenge the judiciary’s stance on curbing such tactics.”

In response to the state’s argument that the SCA should outright dismiss Zuma’s latest appeal as yet another meritless attempt to further delay his trial, Thusini maintains that the former president’s argument that Downer must be removed because he “perceives” him to be biased is “unanswerable”.

ALSO READ: Downer dismisses Zuma’s allegations of ‘racist undertones’ in legal strategy

Arms deal

The arms deal case was declared trial-ready three years ago but has been delayed by Zuma’s repeated failed efforts to force the removal of Downer.

The 81-year-old Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thales are facing multiple charges, including fraud‚ corruption, money laundering, and racketeering, in connection with the controversial multibillion-rand arms deal procurement concluded in the late 1990s while he was vice president.

It is the state’s case that Zuma was kept on a corrupt retainer by his former financial advisor, Schabir Shaik, who then allegedly used his political clout to further his own business interests.

ALSO READ: Zuma unsuccessful in bid to change April 2025 arms deal trial date [VIDEO]