Former president Jacob Zuma will be fighting his last crucial legal battle to stop his corruption trial from going ahead with half of his legal team – following a high court ruling that cut off his state legal funding.
Zuma hit out this week at the decision to strip him of state legal funding, claiming it was part of a deliberate strategy to stop him from fighting his case.
He has also taken issue with the state hiring some of SA’s most high-profile lawyers to argue its case.
Advocates Wim Trengove, Andrew Breytenbach and Gilbert Marcus are among the team that the National Prosecuting Authority has hired to fight its case.
Business Day has, meanwhile, established that neither senior advocate Mike Hellens nor advocate Dawie Joubert will continue acting for Zuma during his application for a permanent stay of prosecution.
Hellens referred all questions to Zuma’s attorney, Daniel Mantsha, who declined to comment on the reasons for Hellens and Joubert’s exit from the team.
“We are focusing on preparations for the hearing of the former president’s permanent stay of prosecution application.
“Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, who has been in this matter from the inception, will continue to lead the team.”
In papers filed at the Durban High Court this week, Zuma referred to a ruling by the high court in Pretoria that he was not entitled to legal funding from the state to fund his corruption trial costs, and links it to the prejudice he claims to have suffered during the longrunning case against him.
Zuma maintains that he has suffered politically motivated mistreatment at the hands of the NPA, which he accuses of deliberately failing to put him on trial with his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik 15 years ago, thereby denying him the chance to defend himself.
Shaik was convicted of corrupting Zuma in 2005, when the Durban High Court found he had kept the then MEC and later deputy president on a corrupt retainer to do his bidding.
Shaik was also found guilty of facilitating a R500,000-a-year bribe for Zuma from French arms company Thales, in exchange for Zuma’s political protection from any potential arms deal inquiry.
Zuma denies wrongdoing. “Apart from being denied the opportunity to defend myself, I have been stripped of the requisite funding for my legal costs,” Zuma says.
“All this is part of the pattern of action designed to prejudice my ability to be represented against the most powerful organ of state.”
He argues that his ability to fight his case has been defined by “inequality of arms”.
“The NPA’s opposition of the application for a permanent stay is not hampered by financial or human resources.”
Zuma has lodged an application to challenge the stopping of his legal funding at the Supreme Court of Appeal.