Former president Jacob Zuma says the state chose not to charge him for corruption with his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik because then prosecutions head Bulelani Ngcuka feared he would be exonerated. “Ngcuka did not want me to clear my name in a court of law then,” Zuma argues in an affidavit filed earlier this month. “For if I was exonerated in the Shaik case, it would mean that I was free permanently and could not be re-charged.” Ngcuka went against the recommendations of his own prosecutors by deciding that while there may be a “prima facie” case against Zuma, it was not necessarily a winnable case. He therefore elected not to put Zuma on trial with Shaik 15 years ago. That decision is one of Zuma’s biggest targets in his battle to permanently stay his racketeering, fraud, corruption and tax evasion prosecution, which has dominated headlines and spawned multiple legal challenges over the past 17 years. Apart from arguing that the case should be stopped because of the Nati...

BL Premium

This article is reserved for our subscribers.

A subscription helps you enjoy the best of our business content every day along with benefits such as articles from our international business news partners; ProfileData financial data; and digital access to the Sunday Times and Sunday Times Daily.

Already subscribed? Simply sign in below.

Questions or problems? Email or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now