Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii 

[1]      Simultaneously with the applications for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this court dismissing Mr Zuma’s and Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd’s applications to quash the charges in accordance with s 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA), the State, represented by Mr Trengove SC, brought its own application, seeking the court’s intervention in what it termed a Stalingrad tactic that has prevented the commencement of the trial in this matter for decades.

[2]      In the main, the State sought an order in the following terms:

‘1.        That the hearing of evidence and the merits of the state’s case against the accused [persons] must commence on the soonest possible date determined by the Registrar after consultation with the parties’ legal representatives.

2.         That it be declared that the dismissal order will not be suspended by any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it.’

[3]      In the alternative, the State sought an order that it be declared, in terms of s 18 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the SC Act), that the dismissal order will not be suspended by any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it.

[4]      The State’s case is supported by the founding and replying affidavits of Mr Downer. Attached to the founding affidavit is a document, annexure ‘WJD1’, setting out in detail every pre-trial and related litigation, including representations made to the Public Protector on 30 October 2003, through to 2018, when Mr Zuma and Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Thales) made their first appearance in court under the present case number CCD30/2018, and beyond that. Given the nature of the application, I consider it pertinent to mention certain pre-trial applications.