Zuma’s Hit & Run Testimony: Jury’s out on who outfoxed whom

Has team Zuma outfoxed the State Capture Commission? Or, is its legal strategy informed by a panicked response after his elaborate opening speech made way for some uncomfortable questions in pursuit of the truth?

It would be disingenuous to pretend that former president Jacob Zuma didn’t claim control of the room on Monday when he stepped into the witness box before Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.

Accompanied by a heavyweight legal team, Zuma arrived, not under subpoena as an implicated party to answer to serious allegations of wrongdoing under oath, but rather as a guest of the commission, so say his lawyers.

This, they argue, means he can’t be grilled about witness claims that he auctioned the country off to the Guptas, or that he enabled them to influence the hiring and firing of Cabinet ministers or executives at state-owned companies or, that he had aided them in their raid on state coffers.

Instead, Zuma’s lawyers believe he ought to be given an ear, that he be allowed to testify in a somewhat uncritical or sympathetic environment as all those who have come before him.

But Zuma didn’t come to willingly share his experiences or accounts of such events. He was there at the invitation of Justice Zondo and knows nothing about State Capture, fraud or corruption.

It is remarkable that proceedings ran for three days before they were stopped on Wednesday afternoon when head of his legal team, senior advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, accused the commission of having brought Zuma there under “false pretences”.

There is no arguing that Zuma came kicking and screaming for round one: A statement released by the Commission on 20 June 2019 clearly states that the commission had been negotiating with his legal team for confirmation that he would appear for five days this week.



But Sikhakhane said he had advised his client to “honour” the request to appear, but that he now believed that was a mistake.

This is because his client was being cross-examined — there appears to be a fine line between asking Zuma to respond to what other witnesses have said about him vs cross-examining him as one would expect in a criminal trial.

Zuma is not an accused before the State Capture Commission and the inquiry is inquisitorial in nature, not accusatory as would be the case in criminal proceedings.

The rules of the commission allow witnesses to be questioned in order to assess the truthfulness of their evidence.

But Zuma’s lawyers took issue, several times, with the manner in which he was being questioned and have seemingly tried to restrict advocate Paul Pretorius, head of the inquiry’s legal team, to a rigidly soft line of questioning.

The legal strategy at play was marked by multiple interruptions of Pretorius’ attempt to wade through the witness’s testimony.

Twice on Monday Sikhakhane sought to rattle Pretorius by asking that he reads an isiZulu statement that Zuma had allegedly made to former government DG, Themba Maseko, in which he had allegedly called to ask Maseko to help the Guptas.

Pretorius, who said his reading of the paragraph may not suffice, was forced to leave the reading thereof to Justice Zondo.

Following Sikhakhane’s firm objection on Wednesday afternoon, the parties retreated to their corners; team Zuma to consult their client after which they met Justice Zondo.

It was then agreed to postpone Zuma’s appearance to Friday to allow the parties to figure out how best to proceed.

Sikhakhane’s objection came shortly after Zuma raised issue with the proceedings during questions around Barbara Hogan’s claims that he had allegedly interfered in a Transnet Board decision to appoint a new CEO, when he insisted that he wanted Siyabonga Gama, then the subject of an investigation into misconduct.

“I have a problem because I am being made to go through the details that are the details of the officials and expected to remember every other detail on work generally done by DGs and other officials.”

Said Zuma: “I am not Cabinet secretary or one of those who take minutes. The manner in which I am being asked questions on the details that I can’t even remember properly (because I wasn’t working with these).

“Now, naturally, this would have its own results. The results that would make the commission to take some conclusions.”

Pretorius was being thorough in his questioning. He had attempted to extract responses from Zuma about a detailed memorandum that Hogan had sent him on the proposed appointment and the board’s preferred candidate for the job.

“Now, if we take this document, either the DG or the Secretary for Cabinet, they worked on it. I am not sure about the purpose of me having to remember where the ‘i’s were dotted or the ‘t’s were crossed,” said Zuma.

Justice Zondo tried to reassure him and said where he did not know or could not recall things, he could simply say so.

Zondo also reminded him that Hogan’s allegations were that he had interfered in the process, so it was important for the commission to understand how matters had unfolded — according to him.

Zuma didn’t budge.

“I hear you. But, my problem does not go away. For example, the allegation put forward by the minister is that I interfered. I don’t know what that means, because the president talks to the minister about what they do. So if there was an appointment to be made, they consult with the president. I don’t understand this very broad word (interfere).”

Justice Zondo tried again, providing a cushion that Pretorius may have to go through the gist of Hogan’s claims as opposed to line by line.

Zuma, realising that he was not going to win this round then said:

“Chair, I hear you but I am being cross-examined on the details and I don’t know what will be the outcome. If we’re looking at that particular allegation, if I go through all of this and the commission does not consider my answer?”

‘THAT’S WHY I’VE GOT TO WORRY,’ ZUMA SAID