Jacob Zuma corruption charges

[1][2] The Arms Deal, a major defence procurement package, was signed shortly after Zuma was appointed deputy president in 1999, and both Shaik and Thales had financial interests in the underlying contracts.

At the Polokwane conference in December 2007, Zuma was elected president of the African National Congress (ANC), the ruling party.

The charges were set aside again in September 2008, when high court judge Chris Nicholson declared them unlawful on procedural grounds.

Yet in April 2009, the NPA voluntarily withdrew the charges against Zuma due to new allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, this time fuelled by the so-called spy tapes.

[3] 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.

[4] The next year, however, Zuma became a key figure in the 2004–2005 trial of Schabir Shaik, a Durban businessman and his friend and financial adviser.

The trial concerned subcontracts for the four Valour-class frigates which had been procured for the South African Navy under the Arms Deal.

Shaik had a close business relationship with Thomson-CSF (later Thales), which had won the contract to provide the combat suites for the frigates.

The court found that this suggested that the payments had been made in anticipation of some business-related benefit that Zuma could deliver through his political office and connections.

The court concluded that the annual payments were intended to purchase Zuma's assistance in protecting Thales from investigation and in improving its profile for future government tenders.

[14] On 20 September 2006, the Pietermaritzburg High Court dismissed the state's application for a postponement and, when the NPA indicated that it was not prepared to proceed with the trial, struck the matter off the roll.

[19] 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.

However, Nicholson also commented on the impartiality of the NPA, saying that he believed that political interference had played a significant role in the decision to reinstate Zuma.

"[20][22] In paragraphs 210 and 220, the judgement reads:The timing of the indictment by Mr Mpshe on 28 December 2007, after the President suffered a political defeat at Polokwane was most unfortunate.

This factor, together with the suspension of Mr Pikoli, who was supposed to be independent and immune from executive interference, persuade me that the most plausible inference is that the baleful political influence was continuing.

It commences with the 'political leadership' given by [Justice] Minister [Penuell] Maduna to Mr Ngcuka, when he declined to prosecute the applicant, to his communications and meetings with Thint representatives and the other matters to which I have alluded.

Given the rules of evidence the court is forced to accept the inference which is the least favourable to the party's cause who had peculiar knowledge of the true facts...

It is a matter of grave concern that this process has taken place in the new South Africa given the ravages it caused under the Apartheid order.

[26] In subsequent months, although the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgement cleared the way for Zuma's trial to continue, new allegations of prosecutorial misconduct emerged.

These allegations revolved around the so-called spy tapes: recordings of intercepted phone calls which Zuma's lawyers claimed showed that the head of the Scorpions, Leonard McCarthy, had conspired with Ngcuka, the former NDPP, over the timing of the charges laid against Zuma, in service of Mbeki's political advantage.

[28] 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.

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.

[48][49] The warrant was suspended until May, at which point, due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, it was stayed until June,[50] when it was cancelled because Zuma had produced a medical certificate verifying his illness.

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.

[43][53] 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.