The parting of ways between former president Jacob Zuma and his attorney, Michael Hulley, was to be expected. It can now reasonably be anticipated that Zuma will contend that he acted on Hulley’s advice in much of the malfeasance that will be laid at his door in the criminal courts.
Hulley and Mxolisi Nxasana, our former national director of public prosecutions, have contradicted each other on oath regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination of the services of the latter by Zuma. The way is now almost clear to charge Zuma with corruption for doing what he ought not to have done to end the threat Nxasana’s continued tenure posed to Zuma’s lifestyle, liberty and freedom to loot.
Simultaneously, Hulley can be charged with attempting to defeat the ends of justice. The delaying factor is the long-awaited termination of the services of Shaun Abrahams as successor to Nxasana. This felicitous circumstance will probably follow delivery of an overdue judgment of the Constitutional Court which has been asked to second-guess a ruling of the High Court in Pretoria that terminated Abrahams’s tenure. It is all that would appear to be holding up a short, sharp trial that could see Zuma go down for 15 years — cheaper by far than proving 783 Shaik deals.
Surely the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society should by now have applied itself to the contradictory oaths of its members? An attorney’s word is meant to be his bond.
SC Director of Accountability Now