Shaik case was a dry-run for NPA, says Jacob Zuma
Former president contends he was not charged in the trial because the state's case was weak and he would have been exonerated
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...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.