Key Takeaways:
- The state has launched a "Stop Stalingrad" application to prevent further delays in the arms-deal related corruption trial of former president Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thales.
- The trial has been delayed for years due to numerous interlocutory applications and appeals.
- Zuma and Thales have pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering, fraud, corruption, and money laundering.
- The state argues that the accused are using delaying tactics to avoid facing trial, while the defense argues that they have a constitutional right to appeal.
- The court has reserved judgment on both the "Stop Stalingrad" application and the application for leave to appeal.
Introduction to the "Stop Stalingrad" Application
The state has launched a "Stop Stalingrad" application in an effort to prevent further delays in the arms-deal related corruption trial of former president Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thales. The application, launched by state prosecutor Advocate Wim Trengove, aims to ensure that the trial proceeds despite any pending applications for leave to appeal or appeals. Trengove argued that the accused have been using delaying tactics to avoid facing trial, and that the "Stop Stalingrad" application is necessary to restore the reputation of the administration of justice.
The Trial’s History and Delays
The trial has been delayed for years due to numerous interlocutory applications and appeals. Zuma and Thales pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering, fraud, corruption, and money laundering in May 2021, but since then, the trial has been bogged down by various applications and appeals. The state argues that the accused are using these applications to delay the trial, while the defense argues that they have a constitutional right to appeal. The trial came back to court this week after a ruling in June by Pietermaritzburg high court judge Nkosinathi Chili against an application by Thales to have the prosecution stopped.
The "Zuma Must Fall" Application
Zuma’s advocate, Dali Mpofu, labeled the "Stop Stalingrad" application as the "Zuma must fall" application, arguing that his client and Thales were being treated differently from any other accused person who had a constitutional right to appeal any issue to a higher court. Mpofu argued that the state was seeking to denigrate the legitimate processes followed by his client and that the labeling of the application was "sensational" and "exaggerated". He also argued that the court could not decide on the application without attributing blame for the ongoing delays, which would be a hurdle for the state to overcome.
The Defense’s Argument
The defense argued that Thales and Zuma had a right to appeal the June ruling, which dismissed their application to have the prosecution stopped. They argued that the deaths of former Thales executives Pierre Moynot and Alain Thetard were irreparably prejudicial, as they could not be called to give evidence or be cross-examined. Advocate Barry Roux, representing Thales, objected to his client being put in the same "Stalingrad boat" as Zuma, arguing that Thales had only been involved in four interlocutory applications and that forcing his client into a trial would be "plain prejudice and grave harm".
The State’s Response
Trengove responded to the defense’s arguments by stating that the "Stop Stalingrad" application was necessary to prevent further delays and to ensure that the trial proceeds. He argued that the accused had launched numerous hopeless applications, which had all been dismissed, and that the court could not stop them from bringing further applications, but could put a stop to the delays by directing that the trial must go on, regardless of appeals. He also argued that the law did not allow "mid-stream" appeals in criminal matters.
The Court’s Decision
Judge Chili reserved judgment in both applications, stating that he would hand down his decision on January 23. The court’s decision will determine whether the trial will proceed despite any pending applications for leave to appeal or appeals, or whether the accused will be allowed to continue with their appeals. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for the administration of justice in South Africa and the rule of law. The court’s decision will also determine whether the accused will finally face trial for the charges against them, or whether they will continue to use delaying tactics to avoid accountability.
