Jacob Zuma corruption charges

1999: The Arms Deal The 1999 Arms Deal, a R30-billion defence procurement package, was signed by the South African governments months after Zuma's appointment to the deputy presidency in 1999. It was subject to numerous allegations of profiteering and corruption almost from the outset. In late 2002, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) announced that Zuma was one of several African National Congress (ANC) politicians under investigation by the Scorpions for corruption related to the Arms Deal. In August 2003, National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Bulelani Ngcuka told the media that the NPA had a "prima facie case of corruption" against Zuma but had decided not to prosecute on the basis that the case was probably not winnable. On 2 June 2005, Shaik was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on two counts of corruption and one count of fraud. The centre of the state's case was that there had been a "generalised pattern of corrupt behaviour" between him and Zuma. (A version of this phrase is often mistakenly attributed to the presiding judge, rather than to its true source, the NPA.) The fraud charge was for misrepresenting the financial records of one of his companies, The judgement in the Shaik case, written by judge Hilary Squires, mentions Zuma by name 471 times. Although it does not explicitly allege a corrupt relationship between Zuma and Shaik, it refers to the "mutually beneficial symbiosis" between them:It would be flying in the face of commonsense and ordinary human nature to think that [Shaik] did not realise the advantages to him of continuing to enjoy Zuma's goodwill to an even greater extent than before 1997; and even if nothing was ever said between them to establish the mutually beneficial symbiosis that the evidence shows existed, the circumstances of the commencement and the sustained continuation thereafter of these payments, can only have generated a sense of obligation in the recipient [Zuma]. == 2005–2006: First indictment ==

In the aftermath of the Shaik trial, President Thabo Mbeki fired Zuma from the deputy presidency, and on 20 June 2005 NDPP Vusi Pikoli announced that the NPA would prosecute him on corruption charges. A provisional indictment was served on Zuma in November, mirroring the indictment earlier served on Shaik, and arms company Thint (a local subsidiary of Thales) was charged as his co-accused. However, in July 2006, the NPA applied for a postponement, pending the finalisation of the indictment. The indictment was apparently obstructed by delays in securing evidence and in pending appeals by Shaik, Zuma, and Thint. September 2006: Charges struck off Zuma and Thint opposed the state's application for postponement and applied for a permanent stay of prosecution, which would have seen the charges permanently invalidated. This rendered moot the application for a permanent stay. The presiding judge said that, given the NPA's lack of a final indictment, the prosecution had been "anchored on unsound foundations" from the start. == 2007–2009: Second indictment ==

in 2009.|left|266x266px On 28 December 2007, just over a week after the ANC National Conference at which Zuma had been elected ANC president, acting NDPP Mokotedi Mpshe announced that the charges against Zuma and Thint had been reinstated, and Zuma was served with another indictment. A conviction and sentence to a term of imprisonment of more than one year would have rendered Zuma ineligible for election to Parliament, and consequently he would not have been eligible to serve as president of South Africa following the 2009 elections, in which he was expected to stand as the ANC's candidate. September 2008: Charges declared unlawful Zuma revived the challenge against the legality of the 2005 raids, but the appeal was conclusively rejected by the Constitutional Court in July 2008 in Thint v NDPP. Nicholson stressed that Zuma's guilt or innocence was irrelevant to his ruling, which turned on a merely procedural point. – had previously alleged that the charges were the result of a political conspiracy by Zuma's political rival, President Mbeki. Nicholson appeared to concur, saying that he was "not convinced that the applicant was incorrect when he averred political meddling in his prosecution" and that the case seemed to be part of "some great political contest or game." January 2009: Charges reinstated on appeal Both the NPA and Mbeki applied to appeal Nicholson's ruling. . The Supreme Court of Appeal heard the NPA's application from November 2008, and on 12 January 2009 Deputy Judge President Louis Harms ruled in the NPA's favour, overturning Nicholson's ruling. On the central question of whether the charges against Zuma had been unlawful, the court found that Nicholson had misapplied Section 179 of the Constitution: the NPA had not been obliged to invite representations from Zuma before reinstating the charges against him. On the further challenge to Nicholson's allegations of political interference, the court found that such allegations were not properly relevant to Nicholson's decision, had not been demonstrated in the evidence, and reflected the fact that the lower court had "overstepped the limits of its authority." On 6 April 2009, Mpshe, still the acting NDPP, announced that all charges against Zuma (and against Thint) would be dropped, prosecution being "neither possible nor desirable." He stressed that the decision was due to abuses which had "tainted" the legal process, and that it did not amount to a substantive acquittal. The charges against Zuma were formally withdrawn in the same week that he was inaugurated as national president. == 2018–present: Third indictment ==

April 2016: Withdrawal of charges overturned Shortly before the NPA its decision in April 2009, at least two political parties had intimated that they would consider legal action of their own should the charges be dropped. The Democratic Alliance (DA) subsequently filed an application for a judicial review of the NPA's decision, with party leader Helen Zille claiming that Mpshe had "not taken a decision based in law, but [instead had] buckled to political pressure." The case was set to be heard on 9 June 2009. However, following initial delays by the NPA and legal challenges to the application by both Mpshe and Zuma, judgement was not laid down until April 2016, when Zuma was well into his second term as president. On 29 April 2016, the Pretoria High Court ruled that the NPA's decision in 2009 to drop the charges against Zuma had been irrational. Judge Aubrey Ledwaba said that Mpshe had acted "alone and impulsively" in deciding to drop the charges, when he should properly have followed legal processes and approached the courts in regard to the spy tapes allegations. Zuma was given a 30 November deadline to present reasons to the NPA as to why his prosecution should not proceed. March 2018: Charges reinstated On 16 March 2018, just over a month after Zuma resigned from the presidency, Abrahams announced that Zuma would again face prosecution on 16 criminal charges – 12 charges of fraud, two of corruption, and one each of racketeering and money laundering, just as in the 2006 indictment. His first court appearance was on 6 April in the Durban Magistrates' Court. The trial began on 26 May 2021 in the Pietermaritzburg High Court, and he has pleaded not guilty. However, between 2018 and the present, Zuma has launched a series of pre-trial court applications which some have dubbed his Stalingrad defence., 15 October 2019. Application for stay of prosecution On 11 October 2019, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court dismissed Zuma's application for a permanent stay of prosecution, pointing out that it relied on several arguments that had already been rejected by other courts presiding over earlier applications in the case. Both the high court and the appellate court denied Zuma leave to appeal the ruling on the stay of prosecution. Warrant of arrest A warrant was issued for Zuma's arrest after he failed to appear in court in February 2020. His legal team claimed that he was in Cuba receiving medical treatment. The warrant was suspended until May, at which point, due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, it was stayed until June, when it was cancelled because Zuma had produced a medical certificate verifying his illness. State liability for legal costs A separate series of applications concerned the payment of Zuma's legal fees. In 2006, following the first indictment, President Mbeki had signed an agreement stipulating that the state would pay Zuma's legal fees. In December 2018, the Pretoria High Court overturned the agreement, finding that "the state is not liable for the legal costs incurred by him in his personal capacity." Zuma unsuccessfully appealed the ruling in the Supreme Court of Appeal, opposed by both the DA and the Economic Freedom Fighters. The court found on 13 April 2021 that the state was not responsible for financing his legal defence, that he should repay funds to the state, and that he should incur punitive costs for having accused the judges of bias. Application for the removal of Billy Downer In May 2021, shortly before the long-delayed corruption trial was due to start, Zuma applied for the removal of prosecutor Billy Downer from the proceedings. Among other things, Zuma claimed that Downer lacked the proper authority to try the case, but the NPA said that Downer has been working on the Arms Deal case for close to 20 years and is duly mandated to prosecute it. Zuma is currently seeking leave to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal, but the NPA has opposed the application, claiming that it is one of many applications brought by Zuma "which have had the effect of obstructing and delaying the start of the criminal trial on the merits of the criminal charges against him." High court judge Piet Koen is expected to deliver judgement on that application on 16 February. Barring an appeal, the corruption trial was set to resume on 11 April 2022. When a judge recuses themselves from a trial, a new judge takes over, meaning the trial will start over. == See also ==