Zuma says ‘bring on my trial’ as he appoints Eric Mabuza and fires Daniel Mantsha
The former president has tried to dispel the notion that he doesn't want his day in court, and is now saying he is welcoming the chance to inform SA on who really benefited from the arms deal.
South Africa’s embattled former president Jacob Zuma Picture: MICHELE SPATARI / POOL / AFP)
Former president Jacob Zuma has fired Daniel Mantsha as his attorney and appointed well-known lawyer Eric Mabuza from Mabuza Attorneys to represent him in his arms deal corruption trial.
The former president has chopped and changed his legal representation several times over the years.
In a statement, Zuma through his foundation welcomed the opportunity his trial would “create for South Africans to get much-needed certainty about the bona fides of the state’s case against him as well as shed light on the much-needed certainty as to who exactly benefited from the alleged arms deal corruption”.
The JG Zuma Foundation said Zuma would still be using the services of Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, who he had “briefed to assemble a multi-skilled legal team that will advise and assist former president Zuma in preparing for the biggest trial of his life”.
The foundation denied that Zuma had been trying to avoid his day in court. The statement suggests he may now decide not to petition the Constitutional Court for a permanent stay of prosecution.
“To this end, Sikhakhane SC and his team will also be advising and assisting former president Zuma to decisively deal with the long-standing speculation about his involvement in arms deal corruption.”
The foundation thanked Mantsha for his services, but said “former president Zuma has unfortunately come to the conclusion that it is in his best interests to part ways with Mr Mantsha at this stage so that he can focus more on the preparation for the trial”.
Mabuza attorneys made headlines as recently as Saturday night by representing the Gauteng Liquor Forum against President Cyril Ramaphosa and government. They accused government of behaving in a racially discriminating way in banning alcohol sales.
READ MORE: Gauteng Liquor Forum accuses Ramaphosa of ‘blatant racial discrimination’
In March, Zuma’s bid to prevent going to trial for corruption suffered another legal setback after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled he had no reasonable prospects of success.
Zuma’s legal team filed his papers at the SCA late last year to petition the court for the right to appeal against a decision preventing him from enjoying a permanent stay of prosecution on corruption charges in the multibillion-rand arms deal.
In November, Zuma’s application for leave to appeal the judgment that his corruption prosecution should go ahead was dismissed with costs by the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
Three judges found there was no compelling reason why Zuma should be granted leave to appeal the dismissal of his bid for a permanent stay of prosecution.
The core of Zuma’s application was his long-time allegation that, due to an unreasonable delay in the commencement of the proceedings, it won’t be possible to receive a fair trial.
Speaking on the delays in the trial, the judgment said another court would not find differently if all factors were considered.
It said Zuma’s submission – that the judges had overemphasised the seriousness of his alleged crimes – had no merit.
Zuma was handed a costs order at the time too.
In February, Mantsha claimed that the issuing of a warrant of arrest against Zuma in the High Court in Pietermaritzburg was unfair.
“He is being persecuted and victimised. It is not about the administration of justice or securing him to come to court. This is victimisation, this is persecution.”
He was speaking to journalists outside the court shortly after the warrant was issued for non-attendance. Zuma’s legal team had submitted that the former president was ill.
The warrant was stayed until May 6, when Zuma is expected to appear again. It is unclear if the Covid-19 crisis may affect the resumption of the trial.
Mantsha said at the time there should be no doubt that Zuma was ill.
“Why should we doubt he is unwell? Why should there be a discussion like that? He has been coming to this court for many years, even when he was not required to come.”
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.
