Duduzane Zuma in court, Thursday 12 July 2018 (Photo by Greg Nicolson) Duduzane Zuma’s defence attorney Michael Hellens has applied for a discharge of the culpable homicide case against his client.
Making his case for the discharge of the accused, Zuma’s defence attorney Hellens invoked section 174 of the criminal Procedure Act which states that if at the close of the case for the prosecution at any trial, the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence referred to in the charge or any offence of which he may be convicted on the charge, it may return a verdict of not guilty.
Hellens argued that the State had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, that the State had no evidence that Zuma had committed the offence as charged.
Zuma has pleaded not guilty to charges of culpable homicide and an alternate charge of reckless and negligent driving. Phumzile Dube died when Zuma crashed his Porsche 911 into a minibus taxi.
In the Randburg Magistrates Court on Wednesday, Hellens argued that the State had no evidence to support its charges, that it had no evidence to prove that Zuma failed to exercise control of his car.
“The state has no evidence. They have nothing,” Hellens said.
Hellens said the state failed to lay blameworthiness on Zuma. He said no reasonable court would come to a different conclusion.
“Take all the evidence by the state witnesses, step back and look at it carefully to establish if there was evidence that Zuma was reckless in his driving. What evidence is there that Zuma drove negligently. It’s just not there,” said Hellens.
Added Hellens, “So where are we going with this case your worship? Nowhere.”
“What did Mr Zuma do to cause this accident to culpably happen? Absolutely nothing,” said Hellens.
At the time of publication, the state was responding to the defence’s application.
Earlier, state witness, Charlotte Nhlangisa, a passenger in the minibus taxi testified how she had called out to Dube and realised that she had died when she failed to respond.
“I started to cry, not realising that I was also hurt. A bone was protruding from my skin. The taxi did not spin, it just swerved and came to a stop facing the opposite direction.”
She said she had not heard anyone alerting of the oncoming Porsche. This was in contrast with what the driver of the minibus taxi said in his testimony. She said Zuma helped her to his car from where she was fetched by an ambulance.
The State’s final witness was Johannes van Loggerenberg, an accident expert and former employee of the Johannesburg Metro Police. He confirmed that he compiled the accident report.
He testified that he arrived at the scene of the accident at about 23.50 having been alerted to the accident at 22.55.
“It was a Saturday evening your worship, we were attending to other accident scenes,” Van Loggerenberg responded to a question about why it took him so long.
He said at the scene, it was raining slightly but he found no still standing water on the road and there was nothing on the road that could have given rise to the accident. “My conclusion was that the factor might have been human error,” said Van Loggerenberg.
He said he had come to the conclusion that human error might have been the cause of the crash because cars were driven by humans who are prone to mistakes.
Asked what his advice was for driving in the rain, Van Loggerenberg said: “Reduce the speed tremendously and be on the lookout on the road.”
Van Loggerenberg also testified that damage to to Zuma’s car was as a result of his car crashing into the taxi, not the other way round.
Van Loggerenberg testified about the conditions in which a car is prone to aquaplane.
Aquaplaning occurs when a layer of water builds between the wheels of the vehicle and the road surface, leading to a loss of traction that prevents the vehicle from responding to control inputs.
“I would assume that when a vehicle is aquaplaning there is no traction, its simply skidding on the water,” Hellens said.
Hellens asked Van Loggerenberg if it was perhaps possible that he did not see a puddle of water. Van Loggerenberg responded that this was not the case in this incident.
Hellens referred to minutes put together by both Van Loggerenberg and JP Strydom. Both assessed the accident and had agreed that aquaplaning could not be ruled out. The minutes also state that Zuma’s car was in a good condition prior to the accident. There was nothing that Zuma could do to avert the accident according to Strydom.
Van Loggerenberg said at the time of the crash traffic was not at its peak and when asked how he knew this he said he used the road regularly.
Hellens said the defence’s accident reconstruction expert indicates that both vehicles were traveling at a lower speed than was prescribed in that area. Hellens said according to the expert’s report the two vehicles were traveling at the same speed. It further stated that the Porsche 911 had a high propensity to aquaplane. Van Loggerenberg said he could not dispute this.
Zuma was accompanied in court by his father ,former president Jacob Zuma, his twin sister Duduzile Zuma, as well as members of Black First Land First.
Commenting during a break, Jacob Zuma was asked if the charges against his son were brought as a way of getting at him. Zuma said it was difficult to say that was not the case, especially considering that an inquest into the matter was concluded. “There was a process and that process was concluded,” Zuma said. DM