The NPA says it still has a strong case in the prosecution of former president Jacob Zuma, and says his stay of prosecution should be dismissed.
In a response to Zuma's legal team, the authority has explained why it did not prosecute Zuma many years ago at the same time it was taking action against his former financial advisor Shabir Shaik.
Specialist reporter at Tiso Blackstar, Karyn Maughan has been following the story for a number of years.
She joined Bongani Bingwa on Wednesday to discuss the case.
This matter has been dragging on since 2003 when Zuma's former financial advisor Shabir Shaik was put on trial for corrupting him, and since then, even the beginning of this investigation, we've seen the NPA making a number of decisions which, arguably, may come back to haunt it when it has to argue that this case must go ahead.— Karyn Maughan, Specialist reporter - Tiso Blackstar
Of course it has a number of court judgments in its favour which essentially said everyone needs to be equal before the law and needs to face the full might of the law when accused of wrongdoing, but at the same time Zuma will argue that the undue delays... and the Sheik case have unfairly compromised his right to a fair trial.— Karyn Maughan, Specialist reporter - Tiso Blackstar
Maughan says the crucial point is former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka's decision not to prosecute Zuma along with Shaik back in the early 2000's.
Three years after he resigned, Ngcuka is caught on these recordings talking to Leonard McCarthy about the ANC's Polokwane conference and saying, I strongly believe Zuma must not be charged because given the atmosphere it's going to look like the NPA is not independent and that we're interfering in politics.— Karyn Maughan, Specialist reporter - Tiso Blackstar
Listen to the full interview below:
This article first appeared on 702 : Why didn't the NPA prosecute Zuma all those years ago?