Stalingrad Strategy Stopped: Court Clears Way for Zuma Arms Deal Tria

Ajouté : 2026-05-16

[00:00:00]Mbekezeli Benjamin of Judges Matter joins us now. Mbekezeli, good afternoon.

[00:00:05]Good afternoon, John, and good afternoon to the listeners. Thank you very much.

[00:00:08]>> I don't know why Well, I do know why I find it really hard to believe that Jacob Zuma is going to present himself on whatever date it is. February 2027.

[00:00:21]February 2027. Okay, so he's got It's quite a few months. On that date, February 2027, he's going to go there, sit with his arms folded saying, "Read out the charges against me. I'll plead, and then we'll deal with the evidence."

[00:00:35]Can he avoid it?

[00:00:38]No, I I don't think he he can avoid it unless he files another appeal to this judgment. And then the NPA would have to, I think, strategically would have to then ask for what they call a Section 18 order, which is an order that says, "We will implement this judgment despite the appeal." So, the the judgment will come into immediate operation, and the trial must continue in February 2027 while you go ahead and do your appeals. That's the only way that they can avoid any delay now that the the judge has said the trial must begin in February of 2027.

[00:01:19]And why hasn't the Section 18 application been brought by the NPA before? I mean, we're talking about in excess of 20 years of delays.

[00:01:27]Yeah, so it it's it it's been a bit complicated because over the period of the 20 years, um Jacob Zuma has used different tactics in order to try and avoid the start of this trial. Some of them have been criminal, some of them have been civil law um remedies that he's used. And so, because of jumping between the the the laws, he's sort of got fallen in between the cracks. It's not the first time, for example, that judges have raised this issue of Stalingrad. And in fact, it was in previous cases involving Jacob Zuma where the judges have said there's this issue of Stalingrad, but they have not yet pronounced say today it stops. So, the judgment today was significant in that it it it is the judgment that says we are we know what game you're playing.

[00:02:16]This is where it ends. This is where we draw the line, and the trial must continue. So, that is that is what is significant. And because of that significance, he is [clears throat] likely to appeal. So, and that the and that's the way the complication is.

[00:02:30]That's where the section 18 has never been applied before because it was pretty unique in terms of how he's he's he's brought his legal challenges.

[00:02:39]Because his counsel, Nkaba Buthelezi, agreed tentatively to a start date of the 1st of February because the judge really saying that the first session of the High Court runs up until the 28th of March, and so the trial tentatively agreed to start on the 1st of February, and then a second session from the 12th of April to the 20th of June, by which time he hopes that the trial will be wrapped up and he can hand down a judgment. And Zuma's lawyer saying we agree to the first session, but not necessarily the second. I- If if as you predict, Jacob Zuma will appeal against today's judgment, the NPA goes to the same court, the Pietermaritzburg High Court, for their section 18 application today.

[00:03:26]Yes, they would have to go to the Pietermaritzburg High Court for for that. And the it it it can happen very quickly, actually. It can happen well before February of 2027. That's why I'm saying it's one way in which they can stop this from from from delaying the trial that is meant to to start. But I think the other important thing, the fact that the judge was quite firm to say you must agree today on the dates on when the the trial is starting is also significant because it also echoes what he said in the judgment itself to say reasonable people are worried about the the course of justice because it seems as if judges are excusing the Stalingrad tactic and so we are now we now have to draw the line because it's significant. So, I I think that if they play their cards right, the NPA plays their cards right, the trial will start uh in February of 2027.

[00:04:22]But, the Zuma playbook is to appeal and when he loses that appeal, appeal to the next higher court, the SCA, when that gets lost, go to the Constitutional Court, when the Constitutional Court refuses to hear the matter because there is no chance of the SCA's verdict being appealed, he has given up on trying for a rescission of the Constitutional Court judgment, but then he comes up with another spurious point of law and it starts its long, slow march through the court system. So, what's to stop the NPA succeeding in its in its section 18 application to the Pietermaritzburg High Court? That is then Jacob Zuma applies to the Pietermaritzburg High Court for leave to appeal that the Pietermaritzburg High Court says no, Jacob Zuma applies to the Supreme Court of Appeal for direct access, they refuse, he applies to the Constitutional Court, they refuse, by which time it's 2040 and the world is burned because of climate change.

[00:05:25]>> [laughter] >> Look, the effect of the section 18 order is that it does bring the the Judge Pillay's order in into immediate operation. And the terms the specific terms of the section of of Judge Pillay's order was that the trial must proceed regardless of appeals, regardless of interlocutory applications. So, that is quite a a strong court order because it says that even if he applies all the way to the Constitutional Court up and down, it it does not stop the course of the criminal trial from going ahead. That is the effect of today's judgment and that's why it's so significant that you the the judge has literally drawn a line in the sand and said, "This is where it stops." And the Section 18 order and the Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act is is the immediate operation of a court order despite an appeal. And usually people usually judges are reluctant to grant that order because there's still a dispute over legal rights and the like.

[00:06:28]And the judgment today by Judge Tuli does dispose of that argument to say there is actually no prejudice in in you uh getting a court order against you, in me granting this order. You still have your full rights protected in the criminal trial. So, even if you claim that your rights will be harmed by the immediate operation of the court order, that that that uh prejudice far uh is is smaller than the prejudice of the public not seeing the justice um system go ahead.

[00:07:00]So then, if the appeal and the NPA's Section 18 application are done and dusted and the trial is set down for the 1st of February, if Jacob Zuma doesn't appear in court to plead and then sit and listen as an accused as the evidence is argued, contempt of court.

[00:07:23]Well, look, he is currently technically on bail uh as we speak as in when >> Still, yeah, yeah, of course, still, yeah. as the criminal [clears throat] trial is proceeding. So, if he doesn't show up during the criminal trial, then bail is canceled and he has to be arrested. That's the outcome.

[00:07:38]And the political and social and civil implications of that. Yeah, um I just he's >> [laughter] >> because he doesn't he doesn't operate in a world where the law is respected. So, the the notion that all of a sudden he is going to respect the law and present himself for trial and take the verdict and if it is guilty, there's no guarantee that it is, you know, I mean the the issues that will be ventilated in the court are more than like close to 30 years old now and is the NPA still going to be able to prosecute a successful case. So, the end result might well be a a not guilty verdict and if it is a guilty verdict, then he starts the appeal process against the verdict and and so it continues, but um Thank you, Mbekezeli, really appreciate it. Mbekezeli Benjamin of Judges Matter.