Zuma and Thales ordered to stop ‘Stalingrad tactics’ in arms deal trial
Why this matters: an international story with cross-border implications worth tracking.
Former president Jacob Zuma and his co-accused, French arms company Thales, have been directed by the Pietermaritzburg High Court to stop using “Stalingrad tactics” to avoid standing trial in their corruption case. Judge Nkosinathi Chili ordered that the state, Zuma and Thales approach the court’s registrar to arrange suitable trial dates. “It is directed that the trial is to proceed irrespective of any interlocutory application, either by the state or the defence,” Chili said. Zuma and Thales are facing corruption, fraud and racketeering charges linked to the multibillion-rand arms deal from the early 2000s. The Stalingrad strategy is a term coined by Zuma’s late defence counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, to describe the use of successive interlocutory challenges aimed at delaying justice. In his ruling, Chili said that in his view, the interests of justice demanded that an order be made directing the commencement of the trial, regardless of the order dismissing Thales’ and Zuma’s application for leave to appeal. Zuma and Thales had approached the Pietermaritzburg High Court to have their charges dropped, arguing that some of their key witnesses had died and that, as a result, the continuation of the case would lead to an unfair trial. “Without this court’s intervention, it is my view that there is a likelihood of grave injustice or the administration of justice being brought into disrepute,” Chili said. “It is not only the interests of Mr Zuma and Thales that the court has to take into account when considering the state’s interests but also the interests of society.” He said the court had an obligation to guarantee public confidence in judicial authority and the administration of justice, adding that it owed the public a duty to facilitate the expeditious commencement and management of the criminal trial. Chili noted that the prosecution of a criminal trial in a matter of constitutional importance could not be delayed indefinitely. Failure by the court to intervene where it