# The Dialogue: Zuma and Thales to face trial in 2027

An episode of [The Clement Manyathela Show](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1201147442), 15 Oct 2026, 21 min.

Audio: https://traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/5dcefa8e-00a9-4595-8ce1-a4ab0080f142/366c625b-e6db-4376-8e27-a6f300c8de6f/1dfd225b-bd3e-4517-a1c3-b4e400ab2f09/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=4b2990fe-a25d-4dca-afbf-a6f300cfc2ae

Kgomotso Modise is joined by News24 legal journalist, Karyn Maughan discussing former president Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thales, as they are expected to stand trial in February 2027. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: So the conversation we're having now is based on developments,
[0:03] Speaker 1: recent developments in the Zuma and Thales matter. He will
[0:06] Speaker 1: now have to stand trial in February 2027 after failing
[0:12] Speaker 1: to pursue further appeals against a high court ruling that
[0:15] Speaker 1: ordered the long-delayed corruption trial to proceed. And for that conversation,
[0:19] Speaker 1: there's a journalist that's been covering this story quite literally
[0:22] Speaker 1: for years, and that's Karen Morn.
[0:23] Speaker 2: Karen, good morning.
[0:24] Speaker 1: Thank you so much for your time.
[0:25] Speaker 2: Thank you for having me.
[0:28] Speaker 1: I think maybe let's just start with this, you know,
[0:31] Speaker 1: leave to appeal. Do we know how much time they
[0:33] Speaker 1: had been given? This is Zuma and Thales. How much
[0:36] Speaker 1: time had they been given to be able to, you know,
[0:39] Speaker 1: to bring an application for leave to appeal since the
[0:41] Speaker 1: judgment was handed down by Judge Nkosnati?
[0:43] Speaker 3: Typically, it's between like two weeks and 30 days. I
[0:48] Speaker 3: think 30 days is in like civil judgments. But I mean, it's... Now,
[0:51] Speaker 3: that judgment was handed down on the 14th of May.
[0:54] Speaker 3: And we approached the state to say, look, what's going on?
[0:58] Speaker 3: And they said, look, nothing has happened. And that was
[1:01] Speaker 3: despite the fact the J.G. Zuma Foundation came out in
[1:05] Speaker 3: the wake of that judgment and were very vociferous in
[1:08] Speaker 3: their condemnation of it, said it was full of legal
[1:11] Speaker 3: and factual errors and erroneous and that he would be
[1:15] Speaker 3: appealing it. And that simply hasn't happened.
[1:18] Speaker 1: Yeah. And what does the decision mean? not to appeal
[1:21] Speaker 1: then mean for the case?
[1:24] Speaker 2: Well, effectively, that judgment stands.
[1:26] Speaker 3: I mean, the judgment itself was fascinating because what had
[1:29] Speaker 3: happened was we have seen this pathology, which has now
[1:33] Speaker 3: been documented in a number of court judgments that have
[1:36] Speaker 3: been made against the former president in relation to his attacks,
[1:41] Speaker 3: not only on Billy Downer, but on the nature of
[1:43] Speaker 3: the state's case itself, that they've said, look, he is
[1:47] Speaker 3: embarking on the Stalingrad pathology of litigation. And those judgments
[1:52] Speaker 3: were the most fiercely articulated, obviously, in relation to the
[1:58] Speaker 3: private prosecution of Downer and myself at the time. And
[2:02] Speaker 3: the court ultimately found that the attempt to prosecute Downer
[2:06] Speaker 3: was the ultimate embodiment of the Stalingrad litigation strategy because
[2:12] Speaker 3: Zuma wanted to ensure that the prosecutor who had been
[2:15] Speaker 3: pursuing him for years was simply out of the picture.
[2:19] Speaker 3: And on the basis of that, the state said, look,
[2:22] Speaker 3: we have this pathology. This has been going on. Zuma
[2:24] Speaker 3: was charged in 2005. Charges were dropped in 2009. There
[2:29] Speaker 3: was then a long-running legal battle to get the charges reinstated.
[2:32] Speaker 3: They are then reinstated shortly after Zuma resigns from office.
[2:37] Speaker 2: And we've been.
[2:38] Speaker 3: Battling ever since for this case to go ahead. We
[2:41] Speaker 3: as the state believe that it's not just about Jacob Zuma.
[2:44] Speaker 3: This is about every other well-resourced litigant that embarks on
[2:48] Speaker 3: the strategy of litigation to evade accountability.
[2:51] Speaker 2: And we are asking the stops.
[2:53] Speaker 3: And we are asking the courts to give an order
[2:55] Speaker 3: that regardless of any interlocutory application that Zuma or Talia pursues,
[3:02] Speaker 3: the case is going to go ahead. He can run
[3:04] Speaker 3: those various applications in other courts, outside, they can do
[3:09] Speaker 3: their appeals, whatever, the trial, the leading of evidence is
[3:12] Speaker 3: going to proceed. And Chile agreed. He granted an order
[3:17] Speaker 3: and he said, come the 1st of February, 2027, we
[3:21] Speaker 3: are running this trial. And in the wake of that,
[3:24] Speaker 3: and he said, you know, regardless of, even if they
[3:26] Speaker 3: do appeal against that order itself, we are running this trial.
[3:31] Speaker 3: And I think we all expected that there would then
[3:33] Speaker 3: be these appeals and that simply hasn't happened. And And simultaneously,
[3:39] Speaker 3: Jacob Zuma has also dropped those other appeals that he
[3:42] Speaker 3: was pursuing, both in relation for the second attempt to
[3:45] Speaker 3: force down his removal and in terms of the permanent
[3:48] Speaker 3: stay application, which he and Thales had pursued against the NPA.
[3:53] Speaker 1: Yeah. And I know you've already touched on them, but
[3:55] Speaker 1: I mean, it's been, what, 20 years? Just take us
[3:59] Speaker 1: through some of these interlocutory applications that we've seen over
[4:01] Speaker 1: the years that have us at this point where there
[4:04] Speaker 1: hasn't been a trial 20 years later.
[4:08] Speaker 2: I mean, there are like a lot of them.
[4:11] Speaker 3: I mean, in the beginning, we know that the term
[4:13] Speaker 3: Stalingrad came up, I think, in like the early 2000s
[4:17] Speaker 3: when the trial was beginning. And Kemp J. Kemp, who
[4:20] Speaker 3: was Jacob Zuma's advocate at the time, bought this application,
[4:24] Speaker 3: had bought an application. I'm not sure if it was
[4:27] Speaker 3: in relation to the assistance for mutual legal assistance to Mauritius,
[4:33] Speaker 3: because that was in relation to the documentation, the encrypted
[4:37] Speaker 3: fax that the state was going to use against Jacob
[4:39] Speaker 3: Zuma online. or it was in one of the other
[4:41] Speaker 3: applications because there were multiple challenges to search and seizure
[4:45] Speaker 3: ones that the scorpions had bought, et cetera, et cetera,
[4:48] Speaker 3: et cetera. But essentially he said, we are, we're not,
[4:51] Speaker 3: you know, we are fighting this. case like with like
[4:54] Speaker 3: like um the allies fought stalingrad it's it's burning room
[4:58] Speaker 3: to burning room essentially you know world war ii where
[5:02] Speaker 3: um the allies fought the russians and and fought the
[5:05] Speaker 3: nazis in every single street in every room.
[5:08] Speaker 2: So they wouldn't give an.
[5:09] Speaker 3: Inch of stalingrad and ultimately all um wore the wore
[5:14] Speaker 3: the nazis down and that was the analogy that he
[5:16] Speaker 3: knew used in other words we are going to fight
[5:19] Speaker 3: you at every single corner that we can And in.
[5:22] Speaker 2: The beginning, Jacob Zuma did score some victories.
[5:27] Speaker 3: They were ultimately overturned. That was in relation to the
[5:29] Speaker 3: search and seizure warrant. But I think the courts approached
[5:32] Speaker 3: it like some of the stuff is actually legitimate. He
[5:35] Speaker 3: has every right under the Constitution to bring it.
[5:38] Speaker 2: But as the case proceeded, and certainly.
[5:42] Speaker 3: as the matter proceeded post the trial, those charges being
[5:47] Speaker 3: reintroduced by Sean Abrams in 2018, the litigation got, I
[5:53] Speaker 3: would argue, more and more ridiculous. And it was very
[5:56] Speaker 3: much focused on Billy Downer. It was very much focused
[6:00] Speaker 3: on Jacob Zuma's assertions again and again that This entire
[6:05] Speaker 3: prosecution was a political contrivance, that it was motivated by
[6:10] Speaker 3: a desire to politically undermine him, et cetera, et cetera,
[6:13] Speaker 3: et cetera. And the courts just kept saying, look, you
[6:17] Speaker 3: can raise these things, but raise them in the context
[6:20] Speaker 3: of your trial. Raise them in the context, be presented
[6:23] Speaker 3: with the evidence, and then attack the case on its
[6:26] Speaker 3: merits in the trial instead.
[6:28] Speaker 2: Of going about effectively.
[6:31] Speaker 3: Delaying your case by raising all these arguments extraneous in
[6:37] Speaker 3: a process that's outside of the trial. And that has
[6:41] Speaker 3: effectively been highly, highly successful to the point where the
[6:46] Speaker 3: case was delayed for well over, you know, for two decades. Yep.
[6:53] Speaker 1: I mean, it feels, look, it's a lifetime. But talk
[6:56] Speaker 1: us through the actual case? Because I think with all
[6:59] Speaker 1: the intellectual applications that have happened and, you know, we're
[7:03] Speaker 1: in court for this arms deal matter for this and
[7:05] Speaker 1: for that, but never for the actual case. We've never
[7:08] Speaker 1: gotten to the merits. Remind us what the state's case
[7:11] Speaker 1: actually is here.
[7:13] Speaker 3: Well, essentially the state's case is rested on the previous
[7:16] Speaker 3: prosecution of Zuma's financial advisor, Shabir Sheikh, who we know
[7:20] Speaker 3: was convicted of corrupting him in 2005. And essentially the
[7:23] Speaker 3: state said, that Sheikh had kept Jacob Zuma, who was then,
[7:29] Speaker 3: I think, a tourism emissary at one stage and then
[7:32] Speaker 3: graduated to the position of deputy president on a kind
[7:35] Speaker 3: of corrupt retainer that he had paid for everything from groceries,
[7:40] Speaker 3: Christmas groceries, to his kids' school fees, rentals, cash payments,
[7:44] Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera, to essentially have Jacob Zuma at
[7:47] Speaker 3: his beck and call when he needed it in terms
[7:51] Speaker 3: of his political dealings. And remember, Shabir Sheikh was very
[7:54] Speaker 3: much involved in the arms deal, and he had been linked,
[7:58] Speaker 3: he had a business relationship with Thompson CSF, which was
[8:02] Speaker 3: an arms company at the time, later becomes Thales. And
[8:05] Speaker 3: as part of this whole arrangement, He then facilitates a
[8:10] Speaker 3: half a million rand a year bribe for Jacob Zuma.
[8:14] Speaker 3: in exchange for him protecting Thales from a potentially damaging
[8:20] Speaker 3: investigation into this multi-billion rand arms deal. And we remember,
[8:26] Speaker 3: I mean, this is years and years ago, so a
[8:28] Speaker 3: lot of people will just be absolutely like, what is
[8:31] Speaker 3: actually going on? But at the time of the arms deal,
[8:34] Speaker 3: people were raising alarm. I mean, it's been regarded as,
[8:37] Speaker 3: you know, quote-unquote, the ANC's original corruption sin. Yeah. And,
[8:42] Speaker 3: you know, there were people like Patricia DeLille, who's the
[8:45] Speaker 3: state's first witness against Jacob Zuma, was saying something was.
[8:48] Speaker 2: Seriously wrong here.
[8:50] Speaker 3: We've got a lot of concerns. We want this thing investigated.
[8:54] Speaker 3: And the allegation from the state is that Sheikh then
[8:57] Speaker 3: gets Jacob Zuma this bribe, which is documented in an
[9:01] Speaker 3: encrypted fax, you know, and essentially gets him to promise
[9:06] Speaker 3: his protection in exchange for this money. And that's the
[9:10] Speaker 3: nature of this particular case, in addition to the evidence
[9:15] Speaker 3: of the forensic examination of Jacob Zuma's finances and his
[9:19] Speaker 3: financial dependence at the time on Shabir Sheikh.
[9:22] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[9:23] Speaker 1: And have we had a sense, you know, however little, because,
[9:26] Speaker 1: of course, the matter hasn't gone to trial, but is
[9:28] Speaker 1: there a sense of what the defense is and what
[9:31] Speaker 1: Zuma's and Haleza's cases are?
[9:35] Speaker 3: Well, we know from, you know, some of the evidence
[9:37] Speaker 3: that came out previously in the permanent stay that Jacob
[9:40] Speaker 3: Zuma said, well, there was nothing wrong in what I
[9:42] Speaker 3: was doing. That, you know, essentially it was part of
[9:45] Speaker 3: the ANC's nature to assist small businesses that, you know,
[9:49] Speaker 3: they were, I assisted, but there was no corrupt intent.
[9:54] Speaker 3: You know, he subsequently has said that, look, he can't
[9:57] Speaker 3: remember this stuff. Like that was part of his argument.
[10:00] Speaker 3: in the permanent stay was like, you know, this happened
[10:03] Speaker 3: over 20 years ago.
[10:04] Speaker 2: How am I supposed to.
[10:05] Speaker 3: You know, well over 20 years ago, because it was
[10:07] Speaker 3: in the 1990s. Like, how do I remember all this stuff? But,
[10:11] Speaker 3: you know, I maintain that I'm innocent. I didn't do
[10:14] Speaker 3: anything untoward or corrupt. So that's some sense of like
[10:18] Speaker 3: what he said. But, you know, there is quite, there
[10:22] Speaker 3: is obviously evidence that he did receive.
[10:25] Speaker 2: Certain amounts of money. And he.
[10:29] Speaker 3: Is really saying that my intention with this was not
[10:33] Speaker 3: corrupt and there was no criminality linked to me receiving
[10:38] Speaker 3: that money.
[10:39] Speaker 1: I want to go back to Judge Thili's judgment because
[10:43] Speaker 1: that's the one that stands right now. But before we do,
[10:45] Speaker 1: I just want to open up the lines for any
[10:49] Speaker 1: questions that you may have for Karen Moore. And she's
[10:51] Speaker 1: been following this case for years. And so 011-AA30702 is
[10:57] Speaker 1: the number to dial.
[11:00] Speaker 3: 072-702-1702.
[11:00] Speaker 1: Send us a WhatsApp. What are your views on this development,
[11:04] Speaker 1: but particularly the fact that this case against former President
[11:06] Speaker 1: Jacob Zuma is going to finally begin in February, but
[11:10] Speaker 1: also in light of him being unwell now, currently admitted
[11:13] Speaker 1: to hospital. Give us a call or send us a WhatsApp. Karen,
[11:17] Speaker 1: the judgment of Judge Nkosneti Tkili It's clear that the
[11:20] Speaker 1: matter needs to go ahead. Does it give us more
[11:23] Speaker 1: timelines and does it give us more details about what
[11:27] Speaker 1: this going ahead will mean? Does this mean the first
[11:29] Speaker 1: witness takes the stand in February next year?
[11:32] Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely.
[11:33] Speaker 3: I mean, that's the state's position to the point where
[11:36] Speaker 3: the NPA team, led by Billy Dunn, who's actually retired,
[11:41] Speaker 3: you know, he's now on contract with the NPA to
[11:43] Speaker 3: do this case, is going to Peter Madsberg, as far
[11:46] Speaker 3: as I know, next week to start preparing. So we know,
[11:50] Speaker 3: you know, I think it was, I'm not sure which
[11:52] Speaker 3: year this was in, but it was in the recent
[11:54] Speaker 3: life of this trial. You know, there was a day
[11:57] Speaker 3: where Patricia DeLisle had arrived in court prepared to testify.
[12:00] Speaker 3: So the state's position has always been, look, we are
[12:03] Speaker 3: ready to proceed. One of the aspects that came out
[12:07] Speaker 3: in the permanent stay applications that were both brought by
[12:10] Speaker 3: Thales and by Zuma was that because this thing has
[12:13] Speaker 3: gone on for so long, a number of crucial witnesses
[12:16] Speaker 3: have died, including, of course, Sue DeLeake, who was the
[12:19] Speaker 3: person who revealed the encrypted fax that allegedly documented this
[12:24] Speaker 3: bribe agreement between Thales and Zuma. And, you know, key
[12:29] Speaker 3: Thales officials, Pierre Monod, Alain Tartade, who were very much
[12:35] Speaker 3: in the mix and were part of the allegation of
[12:37] Speaker 3: alleged corruption, have all died. And Thales said, well, you know,
[12:41] Speaker 3: how do we defend ourselves because these people are no
[12:43] Speaker 3: longer here? And of course, Chile has rejected that and said, Raise.
[12:47] Speaker 2: That in the trial. Raise that in the trial.
[12:50] Speaker 3: Don't try and get me now at this point to
[12:53] Speaker 3: quash a trial when we don't know what the impact
[12:56] Speaker 3: of the deaths of these witnesses will be. And that's
[12:59] Speaker 3: one of the crucial aspects. That's one of the crucial
[13:02] Speaker 3: lines that the courts have taken again and again and again.
[13:06] Speaker 3: So I think the real issue now is going to
[13:10] Speaker 3: be most perfectly what is Jacob Zuma's state of health.
[13:13] Speaker 3: at the time that this case proceeds. And I think
[13:16] Speaker 3: that's where, if that, you know, we're in a situation
[13:20] Speaker 3: where we're on the 1st of February, it may well
[13:24] Speaker 3: be that his health then becomes the deciding factor as
[13:27] Speaker 3: to whether this trial actually goes ahead.
[13:29] Speaker 1: I want to take some calls. Jackson, you're in Santon.
[13:32] Speaker 2: Good morning.
[13:32] Speaker 1: Thank you so much for your call.
[13:33] Speaker 2: Go ahead, please.
[13:35] Speaker 4: Yeah, I just want to find out, because Abulela Ringuga
[13:39] Speaker 4: mentioned that the evidence that has been presented is purely
[13:44] Speaker 4: circumstantial because that is an allegation of a conversation between
[13:50] Speaker 4: Zuma and Shabir Sheikh about the half a million rand
[13:53] Speaker 4: and whatever. Where does that stand in what Karen Mon
[13:58] Speaker 4: is talking about?
[13:59] Speaker 1: All right, Karen, I suppose also it's just the admissibility
[14:06] Speaker 1: of those conversations.
[14:11] Speaker 2: Oh, okay.
[14:12] Speaker 3: Karen, can you hear us?
[14:13] Speaker 1: Sorry, we couldn't hear you there. Can you hear us now?
[14:15] Speaker 3: I can hear you now.
[14:16] Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
[14:17] Speaker 1: Yes, we can.
[14:18] Speaker 2: Okay. So I'm not entirely sure what.
[14:21] Speaker 3: Advocate Muka said. I think that, you know, he's got
[14:25] Speaker 3: a lot to answer for in relation to this entire prosecution,
[14:28] Speaker 3: because I think one of the strongest points that Zuma
[14:30] Speaker 3: did make was that he should have been tried with Sheikh.
[14:32] Speaker 3: And if he had been, which he should have been,
[14:35] Speaker 3: our entire trajectory of history may well be very different.
[14:39] Speaker 3: But the fact of the matter is that this, Payment
[14:41] Speaker 3: did happen. There isn't a dispute about the payment happening.
[14:46] Speaker 3: And it was apparently used for upgrades to Nkandla at
[14:49] Speaker 3: the time. I think the amount that was actually paid
[14:52] Speaker 3: was about 250 million and it was paid through various,
[14:54] Speaker 3: I mean, 250,000 Rand, and it was paid through various
[14:59] Speaker 3: entities and then used for the upgrades to Encandla. So
[15:03] Speaker 3: the payment itself is not in dispute. It's really a
[15:06] Speaker 3: question of was anything done in exchange for that money?
[15:10] Speaker 3: And was it part of a corrupt arrangement with Sheikh
[15:15] Speaker 3: and Zuma and Tales? All right.
[15:17] Speaker 1: Let's go to Sebastian in El Dorado Park, who actually
[15:20] Speaker 1: has a question based on what happens with the former
[15:24] Speaker 1: president's health. Sebastian, go ahead, please.
[15:27] Speaker 2: Hi, I just wanted to ask Karen, if Zuma passes
[15:31] Speaker 2: away because he's very sick, what happens to the child?
[15:34] Speaker 4: Does it go away?
[15:35] Speaker 3: All right.
[15:36] Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
[15:38] Speaker 2: Do they proceed?
[15:39] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[15:40] Speaker 2: Thank you for that.
[15:41] Speaker 1: Karen, it is a great question. And I would imagine
[15:44] Speaker 1: because Thales is a co-accused here, it would go on
[15:46] Speaker 1: for them.
[15:47] Speaker 2: Well, that's the question, right?
[15:51] Speaker 3: I think the NPA would have to make a decision
[15:53] Speaker 3: with regard to that. I think because of the level
[15:58] Speaker 3: of work that's been done in this case, I don't
[16:00] Speaker 3: see the NPA dropping it against Thales if the former
[16:06] Speaker 3: president is no longer with us. But what you might
[16:10] Speaker 3: see is they might be more inclined to say to Thales,
[16:13] Speaker 3: would you be prepared to accept a plea and sentence agreement,
[16:18] Speaker 3: suspended sentence, because it's a company, it's not a person.
[16:22] Speaker 3: So we may see an attempt to then circumvent a
[16:25] Speaker 3: whole trial. But I would be quite surprised if they
[16:29] Speaker 3: would drop it against Thales as well, because their state
[16:33] Speaker 3: has always said there's a prima facie case against Thales,
[16:35] Speaker 3: and they do want to pursue that.
[16:39] Speaker 1: And do we know what the state wants out of
[16:41] Speaker 1: this case, particularly Thales? regarding former President Jacob Zuma. Is
[16:45] Speaker 1: this imprisonment? Do we know? It's pretty early. And it
[16:49] Speaker 1: feels so funny to say it's early because it's 20
[16:52] Speaker 1: years later. But do we know what the state wants?
[16:56] Speaker 2: I don't think, I.
[16:57] Speaker 3: Know for a fact that the state would not seek
[16:59] Speaker 3: a prison sentence for him. I think that it's more
[17:03] Speaker 3: about seeking finality in this case. And I think that
[17:08] Speaker 3: ultimately there has to be a level of acceptance by
[17:11] Speaker 3: the state that you know, what has happened and the
[17:13] Speaker 3: decisions that were made not just by, you know, not
[17:17] Speaker 3: just by Jacob Zuma, but indeed the NPA itself. Like
[17:20] Speaker 3: Bulelani Nuka, I will die on that hill that the
[17:23] Speaker 3: decision not to prosecute them together was wrong. That should
[17:26] Speaker 3: have happened. And then obviously Mokotidium shares subsequent 2009 decision
[17:32] Speaker 3: made after Jacob Zuma has been elevated as the president
[17:35] Speaker 3: of the ANC to drop the case, and lawfully so,
[17:38] Speaker 3: based on the improper law, et cetera, et cetera, was
[17:41] Speaker 3: also wrong.
[17:42] Speaker 2: So that had.
[17:43] Speaker 3: implications for the way in which this case is pursued
[17:47] Speaker 3: but that being said I think that what they've learned
[17:50] Speaker 3: in this whole thing is that while we are a
[17:53] Speaker 3: constitutional democracy that has been birthed out of the pain
[17:57] Speaker 3: of what happened to us during apartheid, where the legal
[18:00] Speaker 3: system was completely abused for the purposes of the apartheid
[18:04] Speaker 3: state to imprison and target anti-apartheid activists and people who
[18:08] Speaker 3: are legitimately fighting for the freedom of all of us,
[18:12] Speaker 3: we have this reaction to say, well, people should have
[18:14] Speaker 3: the right to then pursue legal processes against their prosecutions
[18:19] Speaker 3: there has to be, as Chile has noted in his judgment,
[18:22] Speaker 3: an awareness that it's not just about the rights of
[18:25] Speaker 3: the accused and the state, it's also about the public.
[18:28] Speaker 3: And if we have a situation where well-resourced litigants are
[18:32] Speaker 3: able to circumvent a process of accountability through futile litigation
[18:37] Speaker 3: because they have the money to do so, that creates
[18:40] Speaker 3: an unequal legal system. And I think that the importance
[18:43] Speaker 3: of Chile's judgment beyond just the Zuma case is that
[18:47] Speaker 3: it prevents that from happening. It literally sets a roadmap
[18:51] Speaker 3: for preventing this kind of litigation from stopping cases from proceeding.
[18:56] Speaker 3: And the other thing that I will say, which I
[18:58] Speaker 3: think we cannot lose sight of in this moment is
[19:02] Speaker 3: that the fundamental legacy of the Matlanga Commission has been
[19:06] Speaker 3: that the DCJ, Mbuisele Matlanga, has concretely smashed the notion
[19:12] Speaker 3: of Stalingrad litigation being an effective mechanism to avoid accountability
[19:18] Speaker 3: because he has refused over and over and over again
[19:21] Speaker 3: to allow court applications, postponements, et cetera, et cetera, to
[19:27] Speaker 3: stop his commission from getting to the truth. And he's
[19:30] Speaker 3: actually come out and said, judges need to be more
[19:34] Speaker 3: courageous in saying, is this an abusive process that's being
[19:38] Speaker 3: utilized to evade accountability? And if that is the case,
[19:42] Speaker 3: they need to get up and say, no, no.
[19:43] Speaker 2: We're not doing that. And that is what.
[19:45] Speaker 3: Nkotinati Chile has done. But he's done so in the
[19:50] Speaker 3: shadow of what the DCJ has done with the commission.
[19:54] Speaker 3: And that's why I think South Africans have responded so
[19:58] Speaker 3: powerfully to it, because we're seeing a legal mechanism of
[20:01] Speaker 3: accountability that's not being delayed, that's not being subverted, and
[20:05] Speaker 3: that is not being held hostage by futile legal challenges.
[20:10] Speaker 1: Karen Moore, News24 legal journalist, thank you so much for
[20:13] Speaker 1: your time. Karen's been following that case against former President
[20:18] Speaker 1: Jacob Zuma and Thales for years now. And of course,
[20:21] Speaker 1: we have to wait until February 2027 to see if
[20:25] Speaker 1: the former president actually appears in court for his first
[20:27] Speaker 1: day of trial. And if we actually have the first
[20:30] Speaker 1: day of trial, I think it's going to be such
[20:33] Speaker 1: a surreal day. The fact that the first witness is
[20:35] Speaker 1: actually taking the stand after so many years But there's
[20:39] Speaker 1: other matters also that the former president, you know, has
[20:42] Speaker 1: unfortunately waiting for him, I should say, even as he's
[20:45] Speaker 1: nursing and he's nursing himself and he's unwell. We know
[20:48] Speaker 1: that the TRC cases inquiry as well is, you know,
[20:52] Speaker 1: going to be next week. I believe the former president
[20:55] Speaker 1: is expected to appear there. First, it's former President Thabo
[20:58] Speaker 1: Mbeki and then former President Jacob Zuma. So there's lots
[21:01] Speaker 1: that's waiting for him there. Of course, we'll keep you
[21:03] Speaker 1: updated on those stories.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.