The DA is in possession of a supplementary confirmatory affidavit filed by Mokotedi Mpshe, who was the acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) at the time of the dropping of the charges relating to the 783 charges of corruption, fraud and racketeering levelled against President Jacob Zuma.

Mr Mpshe’s affidavit persists in and centres on the NPA’s unsubstantiated narrative that the timing of the service of the indictment was politically motivated and was a conspiracy against President Jacob Zuma. In doing so Mr Mpshe, like the NPA and Zuma’s legal counsel, does not provide a shred of concrete evidence to support this claim.

Mr Mpshe dedicates an inordinate amount of time attempting to further this narrative which the DA contends is actually irrelevant and does not engage meaningfully with the merits of the case itself, which by his own admission was ripe for prosecution.

The affidavit was filed with the intention to confirm the assertions made by the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) in its replying affidavit in the DA’s review application of the decision to drop the 783 charges in the first place.

When one reads beyond the inconsistencies and thinly veiled back-peddling, Mr Mpshe, in this supplementary confirmatory affidavit, goes to great lengths to absolve himself from any responsibility in the timing of the service of the indictment in this matter while also categorically admitting that “I had taken the decision to postpone the prosecution independently…it was my decision and my decision alone."

He attempts to provide spurious reasons for why he did this ex post facto. That notwithstanding, it was his decision as South Africa’s head prosecutor. He had agreed to prosecute in concert with his deputies and later changed his mind when the political heat was turned up. He did not do so on any reasons based on the merits of the case.

In any event and most critically, Mr Mpshe’s affidavit does absolutely nothing at all to address the central issue in this matter. If there was a solid case on which to base the prosecution, then why did he not proceed with the prosecution, as he originally agreed to, signed off on, and confirmed in his affidavit?

Mr Mpshe states with great clarity that “the decision to prosecute Zuma had been taken, and the prosecution would be instituted as soon as possible because there was no legitimate reason to delay it- i.e. no reason related to the prosecution itself.”

It is therefore now more clear than ever, by Mr Mpshe’s own confirmation, that the decision to drop the charges was influenced by other reasons - most likely political- and no reason based in law, logic and due process.

In the absence of any logical reasons by the then head prosecutor himself, the DA maintains that the decision to drop the charges in the first place should be set aside on the grounds that the decision itself was irrational.

Issued by DA