NATIONAL NEWS - Stripped of his presidency, facing criminal charges, and a judicial commission of inquiry, Jacob Zuma has a long road ahead. But he could get off scot-free – if the court believes his claims that he was simply ignorant, rather than corrupt.

Last year, Zuma’s legal team conceded in the Supreme Court of Appeal that the 2009 decision by former acting national director of public prosecutions (NDPP) Mokotedi Mpshe to drop charges against him was irrational.

Notwithstanding that, Zuma asserting he didn’t know he was in a quid pro quo relationship with Schabir Shaik was a valid defence in South African law, Wits associate professor of law advocate James Grant told The Citizen yesterday.

“What Zuma is doing is actually fairly clever because he’s using the one defence I think is open to him,” said Grant.

“Which is to say: ‘Yes, all of these things happened as a matter of fact, I received the money and Schaik paid me all of these things and gave me all sorts of wonderful benefits.

“He was being a crook, but I didn’t know he wanted me to do special things for him. I thought it was just how one does business.’”

On Friday, National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Shaun Abrahams said Zuma had claimed through his lawyers he had had no intent to commit any of the crimes listed.

Intent is a legal requirement to prove a contravention of law.

Read more on the Caxton publication, The Citizen.