FREE DAILY EMAIL

Date : 06/11/2003
Source: The Presidency
Title: J Zuma: Statement on complaint lodged with Public Protector


MEDIA STATEMENT BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA ON COMPLAINT LODGED WITH THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

I have formally lodged a complaint with the Public Protector focusing on the manner in which the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) has conducted an investigation against me over the last three years. My complaint has focused on the abuse of power, particularly related to the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the conclusion and the manner in which this was communicated, as well as the reported continuation of the investigation.

I have said in my submission to the Public Protector that I contend that there was no basis for the continuation of the investigation, given the fact that the NDPP became aware very early on in the investigation that there was no basis for the allegations, which they claimed initiated the investigation against me, the alleged attempted solicitation of a bribe by myself from the French company, Thales, as part of corruption in the arms deal.

As early as 2001, the French company representative concerned informed the NDPP during questioning that no such attempt had been made to him, by me or anybody else within the South African Government. This was further confirmed later in correspondence sent to the NDPP by the Chairman of Thales, who according to the allegations, was supposed to be one of the recipients of this "encrypted fax".

Furthermore, the NDPP was aware of the impossibility of my involvement in the arms procurement process, as the Directorate had participated in the investigation and the drafting of the Joint Report Investigation into the Arms Deal, with the Office of Auditor-General and the Office of the Public Protector.

Contrary to the NDPP's assertion in the highly publicised charge sheet of Mr Shabir Shaik, that I "influenced the decision making process", they were fully aware that as an MEC in the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government at the time crucial decisions were taken by the national Cabinet, I could not have influenced this process. My participation was limited only to the approval of recommendations after I had joined the National Cabinet in June 1999, at the tail end of the process.

I have never questioned the right of the NDPP to investigate me should he believe there was reason to do so, but I strongly believe that they had no basis to continue with the investigation despite the information they received from the French.

I assert that the NDPP conducted the investigation in bad faith, motivated not by the need to earnestly search for the truth but to cast aspersions on my integrity. An example of this is the manner in which detailed confidential information about the investigation was made readily available to certain sections of the media.

In terms of Section 41(6) of the NPA Act, no person shall without the permission of the National Director or a person authorised in writing by the National Director, disclose to any other person:
a) any information which came to his or her knowledge in terms of this Act or any other law
b) the contents of any book or document or any other item in possession of the Prosecuting Authority.

As I have said before, certain sections of the media were given or allowed access to confidential information, starting from November 2002. The information given to the media could therefore only have been released by the National Director himself or on his express authority. I know that one of the leaks, that of 35 questions sent to me by the NDPP, is now a matter of contention. It is preposterous that I could have sought to contribute to fuelling the trial by media against me by leaking these questions! Well before the leak of the questions, I lodged a complaint with the South African Police Service on 21 July 2003.

The off-the-record briefing between the National Director and a select group of black editors in July this year also substantiates the view that the release of personal and confidential information about me to the media was part of a campaign aimed at destroying my reputation and to perpetuate mysterious agendas, rather than to further the course of justice. I was informed that the National Director gave the editors extensive details of my personal finances and made other negative and damaging statements. This was definitely no ordinary media briefing; it was a character assassination exercise. He also said he would adopt the "Pontius Pilate" approach to deal with me. This speaks volumes about his intentions.

My complaint to the Public Protector therefore is that in releasing or allowing information about the investigation to be released, the National Director was not acting in "good faith" and was acting contrary to the spirit of the law and the Constitution. What is expected of the NDPP after concluding an investigation, should he believe he has evidence, is to do all in his power to persuade a court of law to convict whoever is charged, and not to plead for support from the media. What he did was a political act and definitely not a legal act. In this regard, I contend that the National Director abused the position, authority and power bestowed upon him by his office.

I also raised with the Public Protector, my contention that the conclusion of the investigation against me was extremely prejudicial. I submitted answers to questions that had been posed by NDPP to me on 13 August 2003 and expected the National Director to engage with me on the questions or ask for further clarification if the answers were inadequate, as I had invited him to do so.

Shortly thereafter, I raised my serious concerns with the Minister of Justice about the National Director's behaviour and the manner in which he was handling this investigation. I indicated to the Minister of Justice that I had come to the conclusion that the National Director appeared to be unable to deal with this matter objectively and requested the Minister's intervention.

Instead, the National Director, accompanied by the Minister of Justice, held the now infamous press conference announcing that the NDPP would not prosecute me, even though there was a 'prima facie' case against me.

The decision not to prosecute by the National Director, whilst at the same time stating that there was a 'prima facie' case against me, has effectively denied me the opportunity to defend myself both as a citizen of this country and as Deputy President. The decision also closed any possibility or avenue for me to answer to the allegations, which were apparently believed to have some basis of truth, by both the NDPP and the Minister of Justice.

From the sudden announcement, and utterances by a junior government official who is the spokesperson of the National Director, that I "had failed to answer questions posed to me satisfactorily" - even though I had indicated to the National Director to inform me if they required any further information and they did not come back to me - I can only deduce that the decision not to prosecute me was either taken without considering my answers, or was taken prior to me submitting the answers.

The decision not to prosecute was never formally communicated to me, either by the NDPP or the Minister of Justice. My knowledge therefore of the decision is limited to the press statement and media conference of 23 August 2003. There has also never been any explanation to me of the nature of this alleged 'prima facie' case by the Minister of Justice and the NDPP.

I have therefore requested the Public Protector to conduct an investigation and make appropriate recommendations in this regard, for as a citizen, I still have Constitutional rights to protection from abuse of power.

During the period of rumours about the investigation, it had become clear to me that the investigation had been based on the alleged existence of an 'encrypted fax', in which it is alleged that I had attempted to solicit a bribe.

Because I considered this note crucial and central to the clearing of my name, and given the fact that I had been denied the opportunity to clear my name in a court of law, I focused on finding this 'encrypted note', given also the fact that this note was reportedly the genesis of the investigation against me.

On 29 August 2003, I approached the High Court and requested that the matter be dealt with on an urgent basis. It was my contention that with the ongoing media hype, fuelled by the leaks and misinformation centred around this 'encrypted note', it was urgent that the matter be heard in court and that a decision be taken to compel the NDPP to make the note available to me, given the fact that it formed the basis for allegations against me.

Given the judgment that the matter was not urgent, a decision I find difficult to live with, I was left with no alternative but to seek other means to find the 'encrypted note'. It is for these reasons therefore that I proceeded to approach the French company, allegedly the recipients of this 'encrypted fax' authored by one of their senior executives.

I requested them to provide me with any information they may have on the matter, including the copy of the original 'encrypted fax' and any other information they may have on this matter. The response from the French company (Thales), clearly confirmed to me that the National Director had no basis (as he claimed he had) for continuing the investigation against me, particularly after the French company representative who had been interviewed in 2001 by the Directorate had stated that he had no knowledge of the alleged bribe solicitation which he is alleged to have written about.

I have recently become aware through utterances in the media by a junior official in the NDPP office, and through being informed by people close to me, who are being recalled or subpoenaed, that the investigation is continuing, despite the public announcement that it had been concluded. This means that I am no closer to certainty about the status of the investigation against me, which started as early as 2000.

I consider this to be a serious matter because I am convinced that the National Director cannot be able to deal with any investigation against me with the necessary objectivity.

If there is no malicious agenda against me, I would like to know the reason for this permanent state of investigation. It appears that the National Director is continuing with the strategy to keep me permanently under a cloud of suspicion.

I also took strong exception to the manner in which my children were dragged into this matter, exposing them to unnecessary adverse publicity, through the charge sheet prepared for Mr Shabir Shaik in September.

I believe that the conduct of the NDPP was designed to, and succeeded in infringing my rights to privacy. I also believe that he has acted in bad faith and abused the power of this office.

I hold the view that the arms deal was used as a decoy or excuse by the NDPP and in particular the Scorpions, to investigate my personal life and given these facts, I am left with no alternative but to conclude that the investigation was designed in the main to further agendas that remain unknown to me. This behaviour is unacceptable in a democracy and should not be allowed to continue.

It is against this background that I have appealed to the Public Protector to investigate and make recommendations. I have submitted to him details of my complaint.

Enquiries: Lakela Kaunda on 082 782 2575
Issued by: The Presidency
6 November 2003

SPONSORED BY

Advanced