Thales wants charges dropped
Judge Nkosinathi Chili has denied Zuma leave to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Zuma can petition the higher court directly, something his legal team said it would do.
READ: Zuma corruption trial | Judge dismisses bid to remove Downer from case
Judge Chili also heard an application from Zuma's co-accused, French arms firm Thales, to have the charges against them dropped.
The arms dealers says two former employees who were important to their case have died. They are Pierre Moynot and Alain Thetard. As a result, Thales says it is stranded without witnesses.
Zuma's legal team supports the application. And if Thales is successful, lawyers want charges against Zuma dropped.
READ: Jacob Zuma | The highs and lows of the 'political chess master'
The state rejects the argument and has asked the judge to do the same.
It says Zuma and Thales delayed the trial, and there are other witnesses that can help build a case against the two accused. Judgment on the application is expected at the beginning of June.
By: Aakash Bramdeo
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
6 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Mali arrests generals, French national accused in 'destabilisation' plot
Mali's military-led government has arrested two generals and a French national, accusing them of participating in an alleged plot to destabilise the West African nation, according to a government statement and state-owned media. Mali has endured over a decade of turmoil marked by Islamist insurgencies in its arid north along with political instability that culminated in a series of coups in 2020 and 2021 that brought current president Gen Assimi Goita to power. Sources told Reuters earlier this week that more than 30 soldiers and military officials had been taken into custody on suspicion of attempting to destabilise Goita's government. Mali's ministry of territorial administration, in a statement released late on Thursday, said those arrested included Yann Vezilier, a French citizen. France's once close relationship with its former colonies in West Africa's Sahel region has soured in recent years as military officers have overthrown civilian governments in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. Paris has withdrawn French troops involved in an operation to combat Islamist militants there under pressure from the countries' new leadership. Mali, which cut military ties with France, has meanwhile turned to Russia for support.
TimesLIVE
12 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
French embassy employee arrested in Mali on ‘unfounded' accusations, says French foreign office
A French man arrested in Mali is a member of the French embassy in the capital Bamako and accusations against him are 'unfounded', the French foreign office said in a statement to Reuters on Saturday. The embassy worker, named as Yann Vezilier by the Malian government in a statement on Thursday, was arrested in recent weeks alongside two generals and other military personnel and accused of participating in an alleged plot to destabilise the West African nation. 'Dialogue is under way to clear up any misunderstanding,' the ministry statement said. It added his arrest was in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. France's once close relationship with its former colonies in West Africa's Sahel region has soured in recent years since a series of military coups overthrew governments in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Competition Commission and international banks to square off in ConCourt over rand price-fixing accusations
The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. The Constitutional Court is due to hear four days of legal argument in a matter involving the Competition Commission and more than two dozen banks from across the world, which the commission has accused of 'the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. Three cases, one brought by the commission and the other two brought by the French bank BNP Paribas and US-based Credit Suisse Securities, have been combined into a single massive hearing at which the court will determine whether all or some of the banks should be held liable for colluding. Years of legal battles The case has its origin in a 2017 referral by the Competition Commission to the Competition Tribunal, in which the commission alleged that international traders were using the Bloomberg instant messaging service to discuss the pricing of the US dollar to rand exchange rate. The commission eventually included 28 banks in its case referral. 'The traders shared competitively sensitive information and made arrangements to assist each other by coordinating their trading activities. The traders would regularly agree on the bid-offer spread or spot rate for buying and selling of the USD/ZAR currency paid,' said the commission. The traders would also make arrangements to manipulate the bid-offer prices on the Reuters trading platform by agreeing on the order of transacting, withholding their trades, or posting 'fake bids and offers', said Makgale Mohlala, the manager of the cartels division of the Competition Commission, in an affidavit before the ConCourt. Various banks filed appeals and exceptions to the case, alleging that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to refer the case. The Competition Appeal Court heard the matters and found that the commission had no jurisdiction with regard to 17 of the international banks. Just four international banks were retained in the case: BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse Securities, JPMorgan Chase and Co, and HSBC Bank PLC. South African banks Standard Bank, Nedbank Limited and FirstRand Bank Limited had also appealed against the initial referral, but the court dismissed their cases. 'Single overarching conspiracy' Mohlala said the commission 'cannot accept this outcome in a case involving the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The commission had said that there was a 'single overarching conspiracy' among the banks. 'The manipulation impacted on the exchange rate of the South African rand, which in turn affected various parts of the South African economy — including imports and exports, foreign direct investment, public and private debt, companies' balance sheets, with the attendant implications for the prices of goods and services and financial assets,' said Mohlala. The commission also alleges that the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) erred in several conclusions of its judgment, saying it created new requirements for jurisdiction and contradicted itself. No constitutional issue Some of the banks that were listed in the initial complaint have opposed the commission's application, criticising the way the commission handled the initial complaint and subsequent litigation. Standard Bank of South Africa is among these, saying the commission ignored important information when formulating its complaint. In an affidavit, Ian Sinton, the former general counsel and current consultant for Standard Bank, said the bank was opposing the commission because 'there is no constitutional issue implicated' and 'it is not in the interests of justice' that leave to appeal be granted. He claimed that the bank had raised several factual issues during the Competition Tribunal phase that were ignored. 'Numerous opportunities have been afforded to the commission to plead a sustainable case against [Standard Bank], and it has failed to do so. Contrary to its obligation of impartiality imposed by section 20 of the Competition Act, the commission has shut its mind to relevant information furnished to it by Standard Bank, including easily verifiable facts which dispose of the case,' said Stinton in court papers. The bank also argues that the commission didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute it because the alleged misconduct did not take place in its local office. 'The commission made out no case at all linking the activities of the Johannesburg branch to any cause of action, and so the deficiencies in alleging subject matter jurisdiction remain exactly as before,' said the bank through its lawyer Martin Versfeld. The lawyer for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Shawn van der Meulen, has criticised the commission for raising new legal issues that were not brought up during the initial appeal. JPMorgan Chase has also criticised the commission's decision to approach the ConCourt, saying the case 'does not legitimately raise a constitutional issue'. Banks appeal Two of the banks whose tribunal referral was ruled as valid, BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse Securities, have launched their own cases. BNP alleges that the commission has not properly pleaded its revised case. 'By failing to properly plead its case, the commission has fallen short of the requirements imposed on it by the CAC. This raises a constitutional issue in that this court is called on to decide whether the rule of law, enshrined in section 1 of the Constitution, can accommodate a situation in which the commission can exercise its prosecutorial powers in contravention of an order of the CAC, which binds the commission,' said Rudolph Labuschagne, BNP's attorney. Credit Suisse Securities has also taken issue with how the commission initiated its investigation. The commission 'exceeded [its] statutory power and thereby violated the principles of legality and the rule of law. These are quintessential constitutional matters,' said Paul Cleland, the attorney for Credit Suisse Securities. Credit Suisse also takes issue with the appeal decision, saying the CAC failed 'to treat like parties alike in the same proceedings — for no good reason whatsoever'. It believes it should have got an exception, like several other international banks. The bank says this action is 'patently arbitrary and irrational'. 'The CAC order violates the right to equal treatment before the law under section 9 (1) of the Constitution, which 'entitles everybody, at the very least, to equal treatment by our courts of law'.' Due to the similarity of issues being dealt with, the ConCourt has combined all three cases into one hearing. Argument will be heard from 19-22 August. DM
