Former President Jacob Zuma returned to the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Tuesday, where Judge Nkosinathi Chili is expected to deliver a ruling on the state’s so-called “Stop Stalingrad” application—a bid to allow the corruption trial against Zuma and French arms company Thales to proceed regardless of any further appeals or legal challenges filed by the defence.
Prosecutors argue that years of delays in the case amount to an abuse of court processes. Zuma maintains that he is merely exercising his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The case against Zuma and Thales, stemming from South Africa’s controversial arms deal that began in 1999, has now spanned 21 years. In February, Judge Chili dismissed an appeal from Zuma and Thales after having ruled last year that charges against them could not be dropped or withdrawn. However, the judge did not rule at that time on the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) application to continue with the trial irrespective of future appeals.
“The state is arguing: go ahead with whatever appeals processes you want to approach the courts with, but let’s continue with the corruption trial in the meantime,” a legal analyst explained.
The procedural question of how a corruption trial could continue while simultaneous appeals are heard in other courts remains a central puzzle. Observers note that Zuma is widely expected to appeal any adverse ruling to a higher court, potentially via a petition.
A significant factor in the case is the successful prosecution of Zuma’s former financial advisor, Schabir Shaik, who was convicted and imprisoned on related corruption charges—though he is now on medical parole. Legal analysts interpret Zuma’s sustained legal manoeuvring as an effort to avoid his own day in court.
The NPA, which has had a dozen national directors of public prosecutions over the years, has previously been accused of doing Zuma political favours. Charges against him were withdrawn at one point to pave the way for his rise to the presidency, only to be reinstated later.
Zuma and his political supporters have long alleged a personal vendetta against him—a claim that featured prominently during his refusal to appear before the Zondo Commission of Inquiry, which ultimately led to his arrest following a Constitutional Court decision.
“The NPA has been saying: if you’re as innocent as you say you are, and you’re keen to have your day in court as you have been saying all along, why don’t we just get on with it so that we can prove or disprove all these allegations,” the analyst added.
The outcome of Tuesday’s ruling may also carry political implications. Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe (MKP) Party performed strongly in the 2024 national elections, exceeding expectations for a new party. Whether the court’s decision will affect the party’s fortunes in upcoming local government elections remains to be seen.
Judge Chili’s ruling is expected within hours.