First published in the Daily Maverick 168 weekly newspaper.

It would not be presumptuous for one to assume that whatever argument Jacob Zuma’s legal team presents to the Pietermaritzburg high court – for the state prosecutor Billy Downer to recuse himself – will eventually fail.

The former president returns to court, for his fraud and corruption trial, on 26 May, when the application for Downer to be removed from the case will be heard.

Strangely, the news of the pending application has been known for a while. One would have expected that by the time Zuma appeared in court for the start of his trial on 17 May, the affidavit – stating the alleged case against Downer – would have been ready. That was not to be, lending credence to the widely held belief that this is another one of Zuma’s tactics to delay his trial indefinitely. Surely if Zuma had evidence of nothing short of misconduct on Downer’s part, he would have gleefully handed it over to the court already?

One can bet their last dime that, even when his application fails, Zuma will seek to appeal that – further delaying the trial that has been in the making for more than 14 years. Yet he will be the first to cry prejudice, arguing that he is being denied justice.

Already the resignation of Zuma’s previous legal team, involving advocates Eric Mabuza and Muzi Sikhakhane, had raised eyebrows. But Judge Piet Koen seemed satisfied with whatever “ethical reasons” Mabuza gave for their withdrawal from the case.

But the retention of Thabani Masuku from the original legal team gave observers hope that the trial would continue without delay.

The question therefore remains: What could Zuma be up to? The most plausible theory is that the former president wants to keep the matter out of court, using whatever means necessary. At the same time, the strategy could be to give Masuku’s new colleagues, Benny Buthelezi and Mondli Thusini, time to prepare for the trial.

Zuma’s case is a mirror image of the case against his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik, who was convicted for paying bribes to Zuma. It is now common cause that Zuma should have been tried alongside Shaik, because bribery and corruption is a two-way street. In convicting Shaik in June 2005, Judge Hilary Squires said as much.

The 16 charges that Zuma faces include fraud, corruption and racketeering relating to the 783 payments that he allegedly received as bribes from Shaik.

This was allegedly in return for Zuma to use his political influence to further Shaik’s business interests and to protect French arms company Thales from an investigation into the country’s controversial multibillion-rand arms deal.

The courts rejected Shaik’s argument that the payments – including school fees, allowances for Zuma’s children and wives, instalments for vehicles, rental payments, shopping sprees and medical costs – were intended as loans to Zuma.

It would be interesting to hear how Zuma will explain the bizarre “loans”. Masuku has already indicated that Zuma will plead “not guilty”.

The former president has always argued that he was not involved in the arms deal and is being made a scapegoat by law enforcement agencies to protect the real culprits.

This is partially true, at least the first part.

The main procurement of the arms did not involve Zuma. Zuma is accused of taking a bribe to protect Thales from an investigation following the awarding of the controversial multibillion-rand contracts. Whistle-blowers have led evidence as to how millions of rands in bribes were paid to senior politicians and government officials by the bidding international companies – yet not a single prosecution has taken place.

We now know that the R130-million Seriti Commission, which took four years to investigate allegations of corruption in the original arms deal, was not only a waste of taxpayers’ money but was also an amateurish report not worth the paper it was written on. In setting aside the commission’s report, North Gauteng judge president Dunstan Mlambo found that the commission had failed to interrogate evidence that pointed to widespread corruption in the arms procurement. The Seriti Commission found “no evidence” of wrongdoing in the arms deal.

Now the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) will sit to determine whether the complaint against the judges, Willie Seriti and Hendrik Musi, should be investigated. The JCC will meet on 12 June and make a recommendation in this regard.

Surely Zuma has a case to answer. But if we are serious about fighting corruption, then he cannot be the only one in court. Also, if Seriti failed to do his job then President Cyril Ramaphosa should reopen the arms deal investigation. We deserve to know the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. DM168

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper which is available for free to Pick n Pay Smart Shoppers at these Pick n Pay stores.